[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 140 (Wednesday, October 2, 1996)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1905]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                S. 1505

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. DON YOUNG

                               of alaska

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, October 2, 1996

  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the 
Congress has passed this important legislation. As a member of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I have been involved with 
efforts to amend and reauthorize the Pipeline Safety Act since last 
year. This bill is also very important to my home State of Alaska.
  S. 1505 achieves significant pipeline safety regulatory reforms. It 
also recodifies many requirements contained in existing law. I want to 
emphasize that these recodifications are not intended to diminish or 
affect the Secretary of Transportation's ability to exercise regulatory 
discretion.
  One of the most important goals of this legislation is to allow the 
Department of Transportation to build effective partnerships with 
States, the public, and industry. For example, this bill authorizes the 
Secretary to conduct risk management demonstration projects. These 
projects will allow the Secretary and industry to continue to build 
upon the partnerships they have been developing. We recognize the 
benefits of allowing pipeline operators to implement individually 
tailored risk management plans in place of one-size-fits-all Federal 
requirements.
  In addition to the risk management demonstration projects, we expect 
that the Secretary will continue to exercise flexibility and discretion 
with respect to the standards and requirements of this bill and of 
existing law. We recognize that technological progress made by industry 
may result in alternative and more effective methods to achieve 
pipeline safety goals. It is not our intent to allow rigid requirements 
to prohibit the use of these innovations. For example, alternative 
external inspection devices using x-ray or magnetic flux technology may 
be more effective and cost-efficient than smart pigs when used on 
above-ground pipelines, such as those in pipeline facilities on 
Alaska's North Slope. In these situations, the Department should use 
the authority it possesses under existing law to exercise the 
flexibility necessary to achieve goals in an effective manner.

                          ____________________