Statement of Congressman John D. Dingell, Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY
HEARING ON A DISCUSSION DRAFT ON THE
PIPELINE SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT REAUTHORIZATION AND H.R. 5782, THE “PIPELINE SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2006”

July 27, 2006

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing today. I want to also thank Chairman Barton for his contributions, as well. I believe this discussion draft is a good first step towards reauthorizing our pipeline safety laws and I hope that we can continue to work together as these bills move forward.

One of the reasons that the discussion on reauthorization has been so civil this year is that we did so much hard work in writing the 2002 Pipeline Safety Act. It represented hard-fought compromises, both in this Committee and with our colleagues on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. It made substantial improvements in the law that have yielded tangible benefits. For example, the requirement for natural gas transmission operators to conduct baseline assessments of their pipelines has been praised for helping detect and repair pipeline anomalies before they turn deadly. The establishment and continued promotion of a three-digit nationwide number that can be used prior to excavation activities will help us to prevent one of the leading causes of pipeline accidents.

While this discussion draft does not make sweeping changes to our work from 2002, it does offer some modest and important improvements, including the following:

Enforcement transparency: The Department of Transportation’s (DOT) enforcement of pipeline safety regulations has long been a concern of mine. In the past, a lack of clarity and direction characterized the Department’s approach to enforcement, an assessment supported by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in its 2004 report entitled “Management of the Office of Pipeline Safety’s Enforcement Program Needs Further Strengthening.” Although the GAO reports that the situation has improved, my concerns remained as recently as this March, when Ranking Member Boucher and I sent a letter to DOT on its enforcement strategy. I believe the transparency requirement in the draft will benefit all parties involved in pipeline safety, be they energy companies or safety advocates, who want to understand how DOT is applying its enforcement authority. In addition, DOT’s enforcement authority is enhanced in several other important areas such as one-call and integrity management.

 Low-Stress Pipelines: When a British Petroleum (BP) pipeline ruptured in March of this year, spilling over 250,000 gallons of crude oil on Alaska’s North Slope, the long-held conventional wisdom that “low-stress” equaled “no-risk” was turned on its head. Investigative work by the Democratic staff of the Committee has shown that a lack of oversight by the company and a lack of regulation by DOT contributed to this situation. The requirement in the discussion draft that DOT issue minimum operating standards for low-stress lines will begin to address this issue. Whether that will resolve the problem remains to be seen, but I can assure my colleagues that I will be keeping a close eye on the situation.

Damage Prevention Programs: One of the leading causes of pipeline accidents and damage is the direct result of errors made in excavation. The discussion draft addresses this issue by encouraging States to develop their own damage prevention programs and by awarding grant money to those States that take action.

In sum, Mr. Chairman, I believe we are on the path to producing good legislation and I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses here today.

- 30 -

(Contact: Jodi Seth, 202-225-3641)