Thank you Mr. Chairman, for calling this hearing to review implementation of the PIPES Act of 2006, a bill that passed out of this committee on a bipartisan basis and was signed into law in December of 2006. The United States currently has over 200,000 miles of oil pipelines and 260,000 miles of natural gas pipelines. The safety and security of this infrastructure is of the highest importance to our nation and certainly worthy of this committee’s oversight.
Pipelines are the arteries of our nation’s energy infrastructure. Through our thousands of miles of pipelines, we transport the energy that fuels our economy and daily lives. Unfortunately, recent accidents have thrust this vital infrastructure into the headlines for the wrong reasons and highlighted the need for safety reassessments.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is in the process of working with the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission on a house explosion that occurred last week. Sadly, two people were injured and taken to the hospital, where one later died. One house was destroyed and eight other houses were damaged. The National Transportation Safety Board is also closely following this terrible incident. They have new information linking the explosion to a gas pipeline leak. With proper safety assessments, we can help assure that terrible incidences like this don’t happen again.
Given the vast size of our pipeline system and the limited resources at our disposal, it is imperative that safety inspections and regulations are as efficient and productive as possible. While today’s hearing is rightly focused on implementation and oversight issues of the PIPES Act, attention should also be given to allocating these finite resources in a more cost effective and efficient manner to assure that we maximize our safety efforts. On the issue of gas transmission lines, PHMSA was supportive of removing the seven-year requirement for a safety assessment, in favor of a “risk based” interval, during the debate of the PIPES Act, and continues to be supportive of making a legislative fix today. We will hear from industry how an arbitrary, one-size-fits-all seven-year requirement could cause more critical pipelines in high population areas to be assessed less frequently than necessary while resources are spent assessing other lines in remote areas. There is value in a risk-based, sorting approach. We can’t inspect all the lines all the time, but we can ensure that the public is protected.
As noted by the GAO, it is widely recognized that a risk-based approach will help focus attention and resources where needed. For the sake of increasing pipeline safety, I agree that we should seek a legislative fix that would implement the “risk based” assessments.
Again, pipeline safety is an important bi-partisan issue, and I look forward to hearing from the Agency and our witnesses today on these issues and on the challenges they have faced in meeting some of the deadlines in the PIPES Act . I yield back the balance of my time
