II. ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL
The Secretary of Transportation recently submitted to Congress the
Administration’s legislative proposal to reauthorize and improve pipeline
safety and protection for the environment, and also to enhance
infrastructure reliability. The proposal, the “Pipeline Safety and
Reliability Improvement Act of 2006” looks to build on our progress in
achieving the mandates of the 2002 Act by placing more emphasis on
damage prevention, enhancing state programs’ oversight of pipelines, and
clarifying our responsibilities and emergency waiver authority during
natural disasters and other emergencies.
Managing pipeline safety based on system risk clearly suggests we must
minimize damage to pipelines associated with construction-damage.
Construction damage is almost always preventable and we have worked
to find practices that will eliminate this problem. The challenge is
managing this activity without damaging a very crowded underground
infrastructure – one that gets more crowded every day, not just with
pipelines but new telecommunications, electric, water and sewer, and
other infrastructure.
Several states including Virginia and Minnesota have led the way with
strong damage prevention programs and seen up to 50% reductions in
this type of damage. We need to prioritize the resources for pipeline
safety to be sure that our state partners have more resources to share
responsibility with us in getting this job done. The Committee’s proposal
recognizes this need by adopting important concepts which the
Administration forwarded, including new civil enforcement authority,
incentives for states to improve their damage prevention programs,
technology grants to advance the safety and efficiency of the one call
notification process, and more funding for state pipeline safety programs.
The following chart from a PHMSA report gives a picture of the progress
possible with a strong enforcement program. There are degrees of
success with enforcement and two model states, Virginia and Minnesota
both have fewer than 3 damages per 1,000 one call tickets by enforcing
the practice of calling before digging.
[Chart depicting Gas Distribution Damage Performance/1000 Tickets Third-party (2000-2003) and
Excavation (2004)]
Our proposal addresses this concern by establishing a state grant program
to provide more incentives to states to develop effective damage
prevention programs. State agencies and PHMSA would also gain
authority to conduct civil enforcement actions against anyone who fails
to contact “One-Call” prior to digging, with our focus being on state
enforcement.
Ensuring the safety of 2.3 million miles of pipelines is an enormous task.
Our state partners oversee 90 percent of operator compliance with
pipeline safety regulations. We seek to raise the cap on grants provided
to state pipeline agencies over 6 years from 50 percent to 80 percent
to offset the increasing cost of the programs they execute, consistent with
the programs of the Department. State agencies do utilize PHMSA’
national regulatory pipeline safety standards to inspect the majority of the
pipeline infrastructure and we increasingly invest in state training and
decision support as we function as a coordinated workforce. We need
them and they need our help to be most effective.
Last year’s devastating Gulf Coast storms also taught us lessons abthe vulnerability of
pipelines to natural and man-made disasters. In the wake of last years storms, PHMSA’s inspectors
deployed to State emergency operations centers, operator control rooms, and to critical pumping
stations across Louisiana and Mississippi to monitor operatoefforts to work to keep energy moving
without standard electric power.
To assist with recovery of the pipeline infrastructure during future
emergency events, the Administration’s proposal provides for specific
regulatory authority to use emergency waivers when necessary to help
operators anticipate or respond expeditiously to national or regional disasters at the earliest
possible time. We believe this can help to minimize pipeline system disruption while maintaining
safe operations.
Like you, I strongly favor a systems-based approach to assessing and
managing risk, especially as the risks to large infrastructure systems like
pipelines often change over time. I expect to see an effective systems
risk management approach, which this subcommittee helped devise, getting positive results for
pipeline safety. The integrity management program has focused operators on making the best use of
information as it becomes available. But this must be a dynamic process in which the
operator is able to deploy attention and resources against the greatest
risks, worst first. Reliance on stipulated retesting intervals, as established
in current law, is inconsistent with a systems approach and a disincent
to continuous reevaluation and readjustment.
Reliance on stipulated retesting intervals as established in current lawseems a disincentive
to the continuous evaluation and readjustment of adynamic systems approach. It is a basic element
of an ongoing “whole-health” review of a pipeline system. The goal is to regularly and
systematically utilize the most current information about the pipeline system so that it may be
maintained to operate safely in the best condition for the longest amount of time.
These reauthorization concepts have been generally supported across our
stakeholder community, including the federal and state family, and we are pleased to see many of
the same priorities reflected in the Committee’s proposal.
![[Header] PHMSA - U.S. Department of Transportation - Pipeline and Hazardous materials Safety Adminis](/staticfiles/PHMSA/SiteHeaders/Images/PHMSASiteHeader.gif)
