draft statement of the problems with S.2438

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" <bcooper@aopl.org<
=0906/26/00 06:50 PM
=09=09=20
=09=09 To: "Alan Hallock (E-mail)" <hallocka@kochind.com<, "Barbara Hickl (=
E-mail)"=20
<BCHickl@equiva.com<, "Curtis Craig (E-mail)" <ccraig@expl.com<, "Doug=20
Johnson (E-mail)" <dwjohnson@amoco.com<, "Henry Salzhandler (E-mail)"=20
<henry.salzhandler@usa.conoco.com<, "Jeffrey Wagner (E-mail)"=20
<jeffrey_w_wagner@sunoil.com<, "Jennifer May-Brust (E-mail)"=20
<jmay-brust@transmontaigne.com<, "Jim Ruth (E-mail)" <jruth@teppco.com<, "J=
oe=20
Willis (E-mail)" <JWillis@ENERGY.TWC.com<, "Kalin Jones (E-mail)"=20
<kjones@colpipe.com<, "Krug, Larry (E-mail)" <lkrug@unocal.com<, "Paul=20
Norgren (E-mail)" <paul.norgren@uspl.enbridge.com<, "Ramona Ortiz (E-mail)"=
=20
<ramona.l.ortiz@exxon.com<, "Rob Cohen (E-mail)"=20
<robcohen@expresspipeline.com<, "Stephen Muther (E-mail)"=20
<smuther@buckeye.com<, "Susan D. Lenczewski (E-mail)"=20
<Susan.Lenczewski@uspl.enbridge.com<, "Tom Miesner (E-mail)"=20
<tom.miesner@usa.conoco.com<, "Walker Taylor (E-mail)" <wcta@chevron.com<,=
=20
"Bob Nichols (E-mail)" <bob.nichols@iplenergy.com<, "Carl Gast (E-mail)"=20
<cogast@equilon.com<, "Christopher Keene (E-mail)" <chris.keene@unocal.com<=
,=20
"Chuck Leonard (E-mail)" <cleonard@teppco.com<, "Craig Rich (E-mail)"=20
<crich@lgl.twc.com<, Cutty Cunningham/Houston/Eott@Eott, "Dave Cyr (E-mail)=
"=20
<dave.cyr@pmpl.com<, "Dean Hasseman (E-mail)" <DHASSEM@CITGO.com<, "Dennis=
=20
Fahy (E-mail)" <DJFA@chevron.com<, "Dick Lohof (E-mail)" <dlohof@cnxlol.com=
<,=20
"Dominic Ferrari (E-mail)" <dferrari@unocal.com<, "Don Macklin (E-mail)"=20
<dlmackl@ppco.com<, "Doug Polson (E-mail)" <dougpolson@tac-denver.com<, "E.=
=20
R. Jacoby (E-mail)" <ejacoby@tosco.com<, "Eugene Braithwaite (E-mail)"=20
<braithg@GATX.com<, "J. W. Debolt (E-mail)" <deboltjw@ucarb.com<, "James=20
Higgins (E-mail)" <jhiggins@pacpipe.com<, "Jim Jacobson (E-mail)"=20
<jim.r.jacobson@exxon.com<, "Jim Loving (E-mail)" <jloving@ncrarefinery.com=
<,=20
"Jim Townsend (E-mail)" <jimt@navajo-refining.com<, "John Carico (E-mail)"=
=20
<john.carico@coastalcorp.com<, "John Fingarson (E-mail)"=20
<johnf@smtpgw.tmpl.ca<, "John Russell (E-mail)"=20
<John_F_Russell@EMAIL.MOBIL.COM<, "Kay Clark (E-mail)" <kbcl@chevron.com<,=
=20
"Kevin Brown (E-mail)" <kebrown@paalp.com<, "L. B. Peck (E-mail)"=20
<pecklb@bp.com<, "Larry H. DeBriyn (E-mail)"=20
<larry.debriyn@uspl.enbridge.com<, "OB Harris (E-mail)"=20
<o.b.harris@williams.com<, "Pat Armstrong (E-mail)" <parmstrong@unocal.com<=
,=20
"Robert Eastlake (E-mail)" <rweastlake@equilon.com<, "Rodney Reese (E-mail)=
"=20
<l94201@udscorp.com<, "Suzanne Gagle (E-mail)" <SGagle@MAPLLC.com<, "Wes=20
Hogan (E-mail)" <whogan@CITGO.com<, "William L. Hensley (E-mail)"=20
<hensleywl@alyeska-pipeline.com<, "William Morgan (E-mail)"=20
<morganw@enpnet.com<, "William Thacker (E-mail)" <wthacker@teppco.com<, "W.=
=20
Reed Williams (E-mail)" <reed_williams@udscorp.com<, "Tom Doyle (E-mail)"=
=20
<TomD@smtpgw.tmpl.ca<, "Tom Bannigan (E-mail)"=20
<tom_bannigan@kindermorgan.com<, "Tom Bannigan (E-mail)"=20
<bannigan@plantation-ppl.com<, "Tim Felt (E-mail)" <tfelt@expl.com<, "Steve=
=20
Wuori (E-mail)" <steve.wuori@cnpl.enbridge.com<, "Steve Barham (E-mail)"=20
<sbarham@ppco.com<, "Richard A. Rabinow (E-mail)"=20
<richard.a.rabinow@exxon.com<, "Phil Wright (E-mail)"=20
<pwright@ENERGY.TWC.com<, "Pat Daniel (E-mail)"=20
<pat.daniel@corp.enbridge.com<, "Myron Hoover (E-mail)"=20
<mhoover@jayhawkpl.com<, "Michael Johnson (E-mail)" <MRJohnson@EProd.com<,=
=20
Michael Burke/Houston/Eott@Eott, "Matt Clifton (E-mail)"=20
<matt@navajo-refining.com<, "Mark Shires (E-mail)" <mfshires@paalp.com<,=20
"Mark Petersen (E-mail)" <mpetersen@sinclairoil.com<, "Leon Hutchens=20
(E-mail)" <LHutchens@kanebpipeline.com<, "Larry Shakley (E-mail)"=20
<ztcles@mail.arco.com<, "Larry Clynch (E-mail)" <lclynch@transmontaigne.com=
<,=20
"L.C. Sparkman (E-mail)" <lcsparkman@ppliec.com<, "Joseph M. Monroe (E-mail=
)"=20
<joe.monroe@unocal.com<, "Jim Sanders (E-mail)" <jisande@CITGO.com<, "Jim=
=20
Pyeatte (E-mail)" <jhpyeatte@equilon.com<, "Jeet Bindra (E-mail)"=20
<jsbi@chevron.com<, "Jeannine (Carter Montgomery) Gibbs (E-mail)"=20
<jgibbs@ENERGY.TWC.com<, "Jaimie O'Toole (E-mail)" <otoolejd@ucarb.com<, "I=
rv=20
Toole (E-mail)" <itoole@pacpipe.com<, "Herb Whitney (E-mail)"=20
<HWHITNE@CITGO.com<, "Henry Cartaya (E-mail)"=20
<henry.cartaya@coastalcorp.com<, "Hal King (E-mail)" <kingh@GATX.com<,=20
"Graham Hollihan (E-mail)" <Graham.Hollihan@pmpl.com<, "George Rootes=20
(E-mail)" <gmrootes@equilon.com<, "Fred Crognale (E-mail)"=20
<FRCrognale@equilon.com<, "Don Welch (E-mail)" <don.welch@oiltanking.com<,=
=20
"Debbie Fretz (E-mail)" <Deborah_M_Fretz@sunoil.com<, "Dave Wright (E-mail)=
"=20
<dwright2@tosco.com<, "Dave Lemmon (E-mail)" <dlemmon@colpipe.com<, "Dave (=
at=20
home) Wright (E-mail)" <Wright20@aol.com<, "Daragh L. Porter (E-mail)"=20
<DLPorter@MAPLLC.com<, "Dan Knepper (E-mail)"=20
<DanKnepper@cenexharveststates.com<, "Dan Davis (E-mail)"=20
<ddavis@genesiscrudeoil.com<, "Chester Morris (E-mail)"=20
<chester_morris@EMAIL.MOBIL.COM<, "Bud Metcalf (E-mail)"=20
<budmetcalf@tac-denver.com<, "Bob Malone (E-mail)" <peelwf@bp.com<, "Bob=20
Luckner (E-mail)" <bob.c.luckner@exxon.com<, "Bill Shea (E-mail)"=20
<wshea@buckeye.com<, "Bernie Bradley (E-mail)"=20
<berniebradley@expresspipeline.com<, "Anthony Botterweck (E-mail)"=20
<BotterwT@kochind.com<, "Alvin T. Keith (E-mail)" <keithat@bp.com<
=09=09 cc: "Glenn Jackson" <gjackson@wcp.twc.com<, "Jerry Bowman"=20
<jedb@chevron.com<, "Raymond Paul" <rpaul@aopl.org<, "Michele Joy"=20
<mjoy@aopl.org<, "Les Francis" <les@winnerdc.com<
=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