[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 138 (Monday, September 30, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1869-E1870]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




        ACCOUNTABLE PIPELINE SAFETY AND PARTNERSHIP ACT OF 1996

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                            HON. BOB FRANKS

                             of new jersey

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 27, 1996

  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of S. 
1505. the Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act of 1995.
  Mr. Speaker, over 2 years ago a 36-inch interstate natural gas 
pipeline, operated by Texas Eastern Gas Pipeline Co., exploded in 
Edison, NJ. For the residents of the nearby Durham Woods Apartment 
Complex, March 23, 1994 was a night of sheer terrors. Men,

[[Page E1870]]

women and children raced from their homes in the middle of the night to 
escape an approaching wall of fire. Miraculously only 1 person died and 
29 persons were injured. The blast leveled eight apartment buildings 
and could be seen as far away as New York City.
  This terrifying explosion alerted people throughout New Jersey to the 
potential hidden dangers of natural gas pipelines. This concern is 
certainly justified. New Jersey is the most densely populated State in 
the Nation and buried underground are 961 miles of interstate natural 
gas pipelines. In my congressional district alone, 14 out of the 34 
communities I represent have natural gas transmission pipelines.
  Although the pipeline industry has a good overall safety record, and 
the pipeline that exploded in Edison was in compliance with all Federal 
safety regulations, these facts are of little comfort to the victims of 
Durham Woods.
  The accident in Edison last year demonstrate that the existing 
regulatory scheme governing pipelines is inadequate. It is 
frighteningly clear that not enough attention or resources are being 
dedicated to confronting the most significant dangers related to 
pipelines. While statistically one may be more likely to be struck by 
lightening than die in a pipeline accident, the potential for large-
scale fatalities from a pipeline explosion are frightening and real.
  After carefully analyzing this legislation and its new risk-
management approach to regulating the pipeline industry, I am convinced 
that it will lead to enhanced safety for those living or working near 
pipelines.
  The overall goal of this legislation is to move the pipeline safety 
program away from a command-and-control approach and toward risk 
assessment and risk management. This risk-based approach contained in 
the bill allows greater flexibility in developing individual safety 
programs for pipeline owners. But first and foremost, pipeline 
operators must prove that any new approach will result in the same 
level or an even greater level of safety provided under the current 
system. If the pipeline owner or operator cannot prove to the 
Department of Transportation that their plan meets this basic 
requirement to enhance safety, then the current system of regulatory 
controls governing pipeline safety would remain in full effect.

  The impact of this bill would be to focus additional resources on 
areas, the present the greatest potential risk. For a highly developed 
State like New Jersey with hundreds of miles of pipeline in densely 
populated areas, this approach will have a positive impact. It will 
lead to more frequent inspections and greater use of safety-enhancing 
technologies.
  Instead of spreading out resources to provide the same level of 
safety procedures for every mile of pipeline, whether it is located in 
the wilderness of Utah or next to an apartment complex in New Jersey, 
risk management will require pipeline operators and regulatory agencies 
to pay greater attention to densely populated areas.
  Unfortunately, placing pipeline companies under the most stringent 
safety and inspection requirements is no guarantee against disaster. 
Two-thirds of pipeline accidents are beyond the control of pipeline 
companies--they are caused by third parties. These third parties are 
generally excavation crews that accidentally hit pipelines and never 
report the damage to the operator of the pipeline so that corrective 
action can be taken. That is the probable cause of what happened in 
Edison.
  This bill contains a provision I drafted that is aimed at reducing 
accidental damage to pipelines by work crews and making sure that if 
such an accident does take place, it is promptly reported to the proper 
authorities. Under my provision for the first time it would be a 
Federal crime to damage a pipeline and not promptly report it to the 
appropriate authorities. Violators would face up to 5 years in jail and 
a $25,000 fine. Any fines collected under this section would be 
deposited in the Crime Victims Fund and spent the following year. This 
provision was originally part of a bipartisan pipeline safety bill I 
reintroduced on March 3, 1995, entitled the ``Durham Woods Natural Gas 
Pipeline Safety Act of 1995'' (H.R. 1126).
  Public education on one-call systems is also vital. I am pleased that 
a provision I advocated encouraging pipeline operators to launch 
education programs was included in the bill. Although all States have 
some form of a one-call system requiring construction crews to call in 
when they will be working near a pipeline, the success of these 
programs is often hindered by a lack of knowledge about the existence 
of the program or how it works. This provision would increase the 
knowledge of the public on one-call systems.
  This bill also includes a provision originally in H.R. 1126 that 
would remove the pay for the members of the Technical Safety Standards 
Committees. While this cut may be relatively small, I am committed to 
rooting out all unnecessary spending, be it for the space station or 
for the pay of the Technical Safety Standards Committees' members.
  During the subcommittee markup of H.R. 1323, which is the companion 
House bill to S. 1505, I offered an amendment regarding population 
encroachment on pipeline right-of-ways. My amendment would direct the 
Secretary of Transportation to consider and develop new ways to 
increase the awareness of local planning and zoning boards regarding 
issues involved with population encroachment in proximity to interstate 
transmission pipeline right-of-ways.
  The Research and Special Programs Administration [RSPA] estimates 
that of the 272,000 miles of natural high pressure pipelines in our 
Nation, only 7 percent of these pipelines are in urban areas. Despite 
the low percentage of pipelines located in urban areas, the potential 
hazard to public safety is increasing because of residential growth and 
development. In the case of the Durham Woods disaster, the character of 
the land had changed dramatically from when the pipeline that failed 
was constructed in the 1960's. Back then, the asphalt plant and its 
surrounding structures near the rupture point were isolated and 
surrounded by farmland and forests. By the time of the explosion, 
extensive urbanization had occurred within 1 mile of the rupture point.
  After the Edison explosion, many of my constituents asked me why a 
pipeline was built so closely to a large apartment complex. In reality, 
the apartment complex was erected long after the pipeline was built. 
Zoning boards and local planning commissions need to be made aware of 
the risks and dangers of approving residential housing near pipelines. 
My amendment would increase the information available to local 
governments so they can make sensible, informed zoning decisions.
  As a Member of Congress from the most densely populated State in the 
Nation, my amendment is especially important to New Jersey. As the 
urbanization of America continues, the problems associated with the 
siting of pipelines near population centers will grow. I was pleased 
that my amendment was adopted by the Subcommittee by voice vote.
  This bill contains many other provisions that will benefit my home 
State of New Jersey. For example, the increased funding in the bill 
will be used to sustain the recently established New Jersey Pipeline 
Safety Office and for improvement to one-call systems.
  The bill also includes a provision requiring the Office of Pipeline 
Safety [OPS] to gather information regarding the technical and economic 
feasibly of remote controlled valves for interstate natural gas 
pipelines, with special attention to high density population areas like 
New Jersey. OPS is further required to conduct a rulemaking on the 
issue of installation of these valves. This provision is important to 
New Jersey because the pipeline that exploded near Durham Woods had to 
be manually shut off following the explosion, which took a significant 
amount of time. If a remote controlled valve was in place during the 
time of the Durham Woods disaster, it could have lessened the property 
damage resulting from the blast.

  Also included in the bill is a provision advocated by Mr. Pallone and 
myself that makes it illegal to dump on a pipeline right of way. My 
colleagues may recall that near the rupture point of the Durham Woods 
explosion, investigators found exposed deep in the hole created by the 
blast vehicle parts, a drink vending machine, manhole covers and other 
various debris, including a stolen 1990 Ford Ranger pickup truck and 
other debris near the site of the Durham Woods disaster. This provision 
ensures that people who dump near pipelines, where the possibility of 
damaging the pipeline is great, will be prosecuted.
  Mr. Speaker, I was heartened yesterday listening to the debate in the 
Senate on this bill when the junior Senator from New Jersey stated that 
S. 1505 ``is an improvement on the status quo and should improve 
pipeline safety significantly.'' Senator Lautenberg also states that 
``this bill represents a very good step forward.'' My colleague in the 
Senate has been a staunch advocate for improving pipeline safety, and 
his support for this legislation reassures me that this bill should 
become law.
  Moreover, my constituents have been waiting 2\1/2\ years for Congress 
to improve pipeline safety. It is incredible to me that at this late 
date, some Members still want to delay enacting a comprehensive 
pipeline safety bill. I know my constituents do not care who gets the 
political credit for passing a pipeline safety bill--they want 
pipelines made safer now. Furthermore, considering that New Jersey's 
unique pipeline safety issues are effectively addressed in this bill, I 
especially urge all my New Jersey colleagues to put aside partisan 
differences and put the safety of our citizens first by supporting this 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I would oppose this bill if I thought for one second 
this legislation would decrease pipeline safety. My constituents in 
Edison lived under the old regulatory system, and on a cold night in 
March 2 years ago, that system utterly failed them. This bill promises 
to do better. I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on S. 1505.

                          ____________________