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

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND AIR QUALITY
HEARING ENTITLED “PIPELINE SAFETY:
A PROGRESS REPORT SINCE THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE PIPELINE SAFETY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2002"

April 27, 2006

Mr. Chairman, I commend both you and Chairman Barton for holding this very important hearing and for working with us cooperatively to assemble the panels before us today.

Pipeline safety is an immensely important but little-followed energy issue. We are all aware of the catastrophic damage that can occur to life, property, and the environment when a line fails. We all remember the horrible tragedies of Bellingham, Washington, and Carlsbad, New Mexico, that resulted in the loss of life. We learned last summer after Hurricane Katrina the supply problems that can occur when pipeline integrity is compromised. This concern arose again, albeit on a smaller scale, with the breach of the Plantation pipeline outside of Richmond, Virginia, which resulted in the spill of over 27,000 gallons of jet fuel – a precious commodity to the struggling airline industry.

The good news is that in recent years the Federal Government’s approach to pipeline safety seems to be improving. The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 deserves a good portion of the credit for those improvements. Through baseline assessments, operators of natural gas transmission lines have been able to identify and repair anomalies before they result in catastrophic accidents; the Office of Pipeline Safety has made tremendous progress in meeting mandates of the Act and responding to recommendations of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Department of Transportation Inspector General; one-call notification programs to prevent excavation damage have been strengthened and are continuing to improve around the country.

The basic structure of the 2002 Act is a sound one that we should amend only in those few areas that it can be improved upon. With this in mind I hope that our witnesses can inform us on a number of issues including means to further strengthen the enforcement approach of the Office of Pipeline Safety, the need to take more action to prevent excavation damage, and the merits of an integrity management program for America’s local distribution gas companies.

Challenges remain, however. I must note that events have a way of focusing Congressional attention and I hope that we will explore the issues surrounding the recent spill of over 200,000 gallons of crude oil on Alaska’s North Slope. Unfortunately the line that failed was exempt, by regulation, from Office of Pipeline Safety oversight. It seems that because the line was operating at low pressure it was assumed that the risk was also low. That assumption has been turned on its head. We need to find out how many of these lines exist and how they may be regulated. Whether you are a defender of the Alaskan environment, a proponent of hydrocarbon production in Alaska, or both, this spill was bad news for everyone. I hope the Subcommittee will seriously examine this issue. I have attached correspondence to my statement that details some of the information that our investigative efforts have uncovered thus far and I ask that it be included in the record.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to reiterate that the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 was a good piece of legislation of which we may all be proud. It was the result of much hard work and enjoyed the support of industry, safety advocates, environmentalists, and the States. It was the result of a bipartisan process. I hope that as we begin to look at its reauthorization we keep its origins in mind and attempt to follow a similar path. I thank you and look forward to hearing from our witnesses.

- 30 -

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