Message-ID: <8263454.1075844951844.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 11:12:00 -0700 (PDT) From: cutty.cunningham@enron.com To: phil.lowry@enron.com, stanley.horton@enron.com Subject: draft statement of the problems with S.2438 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ANSI_X3.4-1968 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-From: Cutty Cunningham X-To: Phil Lowry, Stanley Horton X-cc: X-bcc: X-Folder: \Stanley_Horton_1\Notes Folders\Discussion threads X-Origin: HORTON-S X-FileName: shorton.nsf Phil and Stan, I thought you might be interested in the AOPL's statement on= =20 the latest pipeline safety bill. Perhaps we can work together to make sure= =20 that there are no surprises in the industry association's positions. Cutty ----- Forwarded by Cutty Cunningham/Houston/Eott on 06/26/00 06:04 PM ----- =09"Ben Cooper" =0906/26/00 06:50 PM =09=09=20 =09=09 To: "Alan Hallock (E-mail)" , "Barbara Hickl (= E-mail)"=20 , "Curtis Craig (E-mail)" , "Doug=20 Johnson (E-mail)" , "Henry Salzhandler (E-mail)"=20 , "Jeffrey Wagner (E-mail)"=20 , "Jennifer May-Brust (E-mail)"=20 , "Jim Ruth (E-mail)" , "J= oe=20 Willis (E-mail)" , "Kalin Jones (E-mail)"=20 , "Krug, Larry (E-mail)" , "Paul=20 Norgren (E-mail)" , "Ramona Ortiz (E-mail)"= =20 , "Rob Cohen (E-mail)"=20 , "Stephen Muther (E-mail)"=20 , "Susan D. Lenczewski (E-mail)"=20 , "Tom Miesner (E-mail)"=20 , "Walker Taylor (E-mail)" ,= =20 "Bob Nichols (E-mail)" , "Carl Gast (E-mail)"=20 , "Christopher Keene (E-mail)" = ,=20 "Chuck Leonard (E-mail)" , "Craig Rich (E-mail)"=20 , Cutty Cunningham/Houston/Eott@Eott, "Dave Cyr (E-mail)= "=20 , "Dean Hasseman (E-mail)" , "Dennis= =20 Fahy (E-mail)" , "Dick Lohof (E-mail)" ,=20 "Dominic Ferrari (E-mail)" , "Don Macklin (E-mail)"=20 , "Doug Polson (E-mail)" , "E.= =20 R. Jacoby (E-mail)" , "Eugene Braithwaite (E-mail)"=20 , "J. W. Debolt (E-mail)" , "James=20 Higgins (E-mail)" , "Jim Jacobson (E-mail)"=20 , "Jim Loving (E-mail)" ,=20 "Jim Townsend (E-mail)" , "John Carico (E-mail)"= =20 , "John Fingarson (E-mail)"=20 , "John Russell (E-mail)"=20 , "Kay Clark (E-mail)" ,= =20 "Kevin Brown (E-mail)" , "L. B. Peck (E-mail)"=20 , "Larry H. DeBriyn (E-mail)"=20 , "OB Harris (E-mail)"=20 , "Pat Armstrong (E-mail)" = ,=20 "Robert Eastlake (E-mail)" , "Rodney Reese (E-mail)= "=20 , "Suzanne Gagle (E-mail)" , "Wes=20 Hogan (E-mail)" , "William L. Hensley (E-mail)"=20 , "William Morgan (E-mail)"=20 , "William Thacker (E-mail)" , "W.= =20 Reed Williams (E-mail)" , "Tom Doyle (E-mail)"= =20 , "Tom Bannigan (E-mail)"=20 , "Tom Bannigan (E-mail)"=20 , "Tim Felt (E-mail)" , "Steve= =20 Wuori (E-mail)" , "Steve Barham (E-mail)"=20 , "Richard A. Rabinow (E-mail)"=20 , "Phil Wright (E-mail)"=20 , "Pat Daniel (E-mail)"=20 , "Myron Hoover (E-mail)"=20 , "Michael Johnson (E-mail)" ,= =20 Michael Burke/Houston/Eott@Eott, "Matt Clifton (E-mail)"=20 , "Mark Shires (E-mail)" ,=20 "Mark Petersen (E-mail)" , "Leon Hutchens=20 (E-mail)" , "Larry Shakley (E-mail)"=20 , "Larry Clynch (E-mail)" ,=20 "L.C. Sparkman (E-mail)" , "Joseph M. Monroe (E-mail= )"=20 , "Jim Sanders (E-mail)" , "Jim= =20 Pyeatte (E-mail)" , "Jeet Bindra (E-mail)"=20 , "Jeannine (Carter Montgomery) Gibbs (E-mail)"=20 , "Jaimie O'Toole (E-mail)" , "I= rv=20 Toole (E-mail)" , "Herb Whitney (E-mail)"=20 , "Henry Cartaya (E-mail)"=20 , "Hal King (E-mail)" ,=20 "Graham Hollihan (E-mail)" , "George Rootes=20 (E-mail)" , "Fred Crognale (E-mail)"=20 , "Don Welch (E-mail)" ,= =20 "Debbie Fretz (E-mail)" , "Dave Wright (E-mail)= "=20 , "Dave Lemmon (E-mail)" , "Dave (= at=20 home) Wright (E-mail)" , "Daragh L. Porter (E-mail)"=20 , "Dan Knepper (E-mail)"=20 , "Dan Davis (E-mail)"=20 , "Chester Morris (E-mail)"=20 , "Bud Metcalf (E-mail)"=20 , "Bob Malone (E-mail)" , "Bob=20 Luckner (E-mail)" , "Bill Shea (E-mail)"=20 , "Bernie Bradley (E-mail)"=20 , "Anthony Botterweck (E-mail)"=20 , "Alvin T. Keith (E-mail)" =09=09 cc: "Glenn Jackson" , "Jerry Bowman"=20 , "Raymond Paul" , "Michele Joy"=20 , "Les Francis" =09=09 Subject: draft statement of the problems with S.2438 here is a first cut at our problem statement for the pipeline safety reauthorization bill let me know what you think Pipeline safety act reauthorization =0F- issues after the Senate markup On June 15 the Senate Committee on Commerce Science and Transportation unanimously reported S.2438, Senator McCain=0F's bill to amend the Pipeline Safety Act. Much of this bill is acceptable and would represent a reasonable and even welcome resolution of issues raised since the petroleum products pipeline accident in Bellingham Washington in June 1999. Unfortunately however, the treatments accorded five specific issues by the bill are so objectionable that unless changes in these areas can be made, passage of the bill must be opposed. This said, there is good reason to believe that an aggressive effort can be successful in correcting the treatment of these issues by opposing passage of the bill until changes are made. The bill and committee report are expected to be filed in the Senate after the July 4th recess. At that time we need to have in place commitments fro= m several Senators to withhold consent for consideration of the bill until specific changes are made. If the negotiations that could be expected to follow communication of these holds to Sen.Gorton, Sen. McCain and the Majority Leaders yield an acceptable amended bill, we would push hard for passage and enactment of that bill. The changes that must be made to the bill in order to support passage are: Mandatory reassignment of personnel -- under section 13(b) an operator mus= t reassign any employee whose performance of duties affecting safety is under an accident investigation by DOT of the NTSB. Failure to comply leads to shutdown of the pipeline. There is no discretion. The scope of coverage i= s determined by investigators, and the length of reassignment is the length o= f the investigation. This provision could force the reassignment after even = a small accident of a large number of pipeline employees, including management, for an indefinite period of time, threatening the safe operatio= n of the line. Counter: Must be deleted or substantially modified. Seek to narrow application: to serious accidents, specific employees, limited period of reassignment; insert flexibility, authority to reinstate if conditions are met, discretion in application based on due process, lack of probable culpability considerations. Regional Citizens=0F' Advisory Councils -- Under Section 15 the Secretary= of Transportation would appoint potentially fifty or more state based citizens= =0F' advisory councils that would advise the Secretary on a broad range of pipeline safety issues, proposals for new pipeline facilities, pipeline permitting and standards and other pipeline-related matters. These advisor= y councils would be federally funded, of unlimited duration and would not be subject to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (e.g. balance in composition, chair by a federal official, restrictions on conflict of interest). In effect these councils provide a federally-sanctioned platform and financial vehicle to support opposition t= o pipelines on a local, state and also potentially on a national basis. Counter -- Must be deleted in the present form. We would aggressively seek to prevent enactment of the entire bill rather than accept a federal program to subsidize a platform for opposition to pipelines and pipeline projects. As an alternative the charter of the existing federal advisory committees (one for liquids and one for gas) should be expanded to encourag= e attention to local concerns. Reiterate that federal advisory committees must comply with FACA. Reemphasize the industry=0F's commitment to public right to know, but opposition to a proliferation of regulatory or quasi-regulatory authorities to which pipelines must respond. Review of Operator Pipeline Integrity Programs -- Section 5 of the bill requires each pipeline operator to solicit and respond to the views of stat= e and local officials during development of pipeline integrity plans. In addition, States with interstate agent status may review these plans at any time, and the Secretary must seriously consider the state=0F's recommendati= ons. Counter -- Must be substantially modified. As drafted this is an essentially regulatory provision requiring negotiation between the operator and an indefinite number of state or local groups. Right-to-know is acceptable, multiple response to comments is not. Eliminate implication tha= t operators must respond to an unlimited number of reviews and recommendation= s on their pipeline integrity plans. Convert requirement that operators respond to all state and local concerns to a requirement that OPS respond t= o these concerns or that the state collect these concerns for forwarding to OPS. Operators should only be required to inform appropriate state and local officials about the plan. Channel any resulting state and local concerns about the plans through the state to the Secretary of Transportation rather than to the operators for response. State authority for =0F"other activities=0F" =0F- Section 9 of the bill aut= horizes a state to participate in the oversight of interstate pipeline transportation under an agreement with the Secretary. However, the provision goes on to require the agreement to include authority to =0F"participate in other activities overseeing interstate pipeline transportation or to assume additional inspection or investigatory duties=0F". The additional authorit= y opens the door for delegation of unspecified =0F"other=0F" functions to the= State, which further balkanizes the regulation of interstate facilities. Counter -- Drop the =0F"other activities=0F" language altogether or defin= itively clarify that the only activities are inspection activities within the federal program undertaken at the direction of the Secretary. Whistleblower Protection for Pipeline Employees -- Section.14 applies =0F"whistleblower=0F" protection for pipeline employees identical to that e= nacted earlier this Congress for airline employees. Affords an employee a right t= o challenge with the U.S. Department of Labor an unfavorable job action that the employee feels is the result of advocacy of safety related improvements= . Counter -- Drop the provision or seek to have a study carried out to determine if the provision is required to maintain an adequate level of safety in the pipeline industry. Is an analogy between pipeline and airlin= e employees appropriate? Modify to lessen the potentially disruptive impact on the industry. Additional concern (natural gas lines) -- Section 5 of the bill requires =0F"internal inspection or pressure testing, or another equally protective method, where these techniques are not feasible=0F" to periodically test th= e pipeline. Natural gas operators feel this language, written with liquid operators in mind, does not adequately account for the differences between the internal testing possibilities for lines carrying relatively incompressible liquids as opposed to compressible gas. This language may force use of internal inspection in the relatively large portion of natural gas lines that cannot accept internal inspection devices. Counter =0F- the natural gas operators have proposed replacing this languag= e with a more flexible approach, requiring =0F"periodic assessment of the pipeline=0F's integrity, through methods including internal inspection, pressure testing, direct assessment of other effective methods=0F". Benjamin S. Cooper Association of Oil Pipe Lines (202) 408-7970 / 7983 (fax) bcooper@aopl.org - McCain.reported.problem.statement6.22.doc