[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 23046-23047]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                PIPELINE SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2006

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 5782 which was received 
from the House.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the bill by title.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 5782) to amend title 49, United States Code, 
     to provide for enhanced safety and environmental protection 
     in pipeline transportation, to provide for enhanced 
     reliability in the transportation of the Nation's energy 
     products by pipeline, and for other purposes.

  There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consideration of 
the bill.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to thank Commerce 
Committee co-chairmen Stevens and Inouye for their hard work in 
achieving this bill's passage. H.R. 5782 the Pipeline Inspection, 
Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006 is a timely piece of 
legislation, and I hope that it will soon become law. I am proud to be 
one of the original cosponsors of the Senate version of this bill, 
S.3961.
  Our 2.3 million miles of natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines 
are more than simply a series of tubes. This system is the 
transportation mode for nearly two-thirds of the energy consumed by our 
Nation. From large transmission pipelines to distribution pipelines to 
service lines which run into our homes, every part of this system must 
be safe.
  I am pleased that Congress is acting to reauthorize the Office of 
Pipeline Safety, OPS, and bringing its resources more in line with what 
is needed to adequately regulate this industry. This bill would 
authorize 50 percent more Federal pipeline safety inspectors than the 
Federal Government currently has.
  The bill will change Federal policy to help prevent construction-
related damage to pipelines by giving additional enforcement authority 
to OPS and authorizing grants to states to improve one-call 
notification programs. At the same time, it will also make OPS 
enforcement actions more transparent to those interested in what the 
Federal Government is doing to make their lives safer. Furthermore, 
this bill will also regulate for the first time low-stress oil 
pipelines, such as the ones in Prudhoe Bay, AK, and gas distribution 
pipelines all over the country.
  One subject in the bill I was proud to author deals with the 
mandatory use of excess flow valves. These important safety devices can 
shut off gas flow when a service line is ruptured, preventing a 
potential explosion. One lesson we learned after the 1994 gas explosion 
in Edison, NJ, is that technology must be used to shut off gas flow in 
the case of a rupture. Shortly after that damaging explosion, I 
introduced legislation to require a greater use of automatic or 
remotely controlled shutoff valves. I am pleased that this bill will 
require excess flow valves to be installed in every new single family 
residence or replacement service lines in a single family residence.
  While the bill would give some discretion to the administration as to 
who may be exempted from this EFV requirement, I have met with Admiral 
Barrett, Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety 
Administration, and he assures me that only operators of master meter 
and liquefied petroleum gas, LPG, systems are intended to be excluded. 
On these systems, he believes EFVs have not been shown to be effective.
  By letter to me dated December 4, 2006, Admiral Barrett of the 
Federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration wrote to 
me:


              Requiring Installation of Excess Flow Valves

  The American Gas Association has provided data that leads PHMSA to 
believe that 1.2 million new and renewed gas services will be installed 
each year. PHMSA had been planning to propose to require each operator 
to include in its risk analysis consideration of whether to install 
EFV's to protect single-family residences served by new and replaced 
gas service lines from release of gas due to major damage to the line. 
Modifications to the reauthorization provisions will change PHMSA 
planned approach, but would allow PHMSA to determine applicability of 
the future standard to distribution operators. The circumstances where 
PHMSA believes conditions for installation of EFV's are not suitable 
are when gas supply pressure is not continuously higher than 10 psig, 
when liquids/contaminants that could interfere with valve operation are 
present in the gas stream, and where load data may be unstable.
  Based on current data, we would expect to apply the requirements for 
EFV's to more than 99 percent of new and replaces residential service 
lines. PHMSA plans to exclude from the requirement only operators of 
master meter and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) systems. These are very 
small distribution systems, whose operation of gas is incidental to 
another business, such as a mobile home park or small apartment 
complex, in the case of the master meter operator; or a ski lodge, in 
the case of the LPG operator. The variability in gas use is too large 
to pick one size EFV and most incidents

[[Page 23047]]

would not trigger an EFV. We estimate that approximately 8,000 of these 
systems would be excluded from the EFV requirement. The estimate is 
based on reports in 2004 from (1) 45 state pipeline safety agencies 
that collectively 6,972 master meter systems were operating in their 
states and (2) 5 state pipeline safety agencies indicating that 926 LPG 
systems were operating in their states. Because some states do not have 
jurisdiction over all master meter systems in their states, the number 
reported may slightly understate the actual number. Further, we 
estimate that, on average, for each master meter and LPG system the 
operator has 100 services.
  I will continue to work with Senator Inouye in the next Congress, who 
will chair the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to 
determine the feasibility of requiring these important safety devices 
in types of buildings as well--other than single family residences as 
well as safety advocates including the National Transportation Safety 
Board have suggested is feasible. These safety devices can provide 
crucial protection in the event of a pipeline rupture or similar 
incident, and technology has advanced to the point where they are 
effective and readily available. Many pipeline companies are already 
using excess flow valves in such installations.
  I thank all those who worked toward an agreement on this provision 
and all those who helped pass this bill. A gas leak in a home can be a 
silent killer, with little warning; we must utilize technology which is 
available to keep our families safe.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the 
third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, 
and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The bill (H.R. 5782) was ordered to a third reading, was read the 
third time, and passed.

                          ____________________