11

ignores the basic fact that all such pipelines were to have been buried to begin with.

The Louisiana Office of Conservation objects strongly to the use of coastal waters as a de facto dumping ground for abandoned pipelines and associated structures. At best, these materials are a blight on state waterbottoms. At worst, they create obstructions that can result in tragic loss of life to mariners. We therefore ask the Subcommittee to consider extending the federal statute to abandoned pipelines.

We hope this information is helpful to the Subcommittee's understanding of the State of Louisiana's concerns. We will be pleased to provide any additional information the Subcommittee would like to have.

Comments of the

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

The Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (NRDC) is a

nonprofit, public interest organization with more than 170,000

members throughout the United States.

Because of the importance

for the environment of the safety of natural gas, oil and other hazardous liquid pipelines, we are commenting on the provisions of H.R. 1489

-

a bill "to increase the safety to humans and the environment from the transportation by pipeline of natural gas and hazardous liquids."

H.R. 1489 makes some important improvements in the Natural Gas and Hazardous Liquid Safety Acts (NGPSA and HLPSA or, together, the Acts). We believe, however, that the bill should be strengthened in a number of respects in order to achieve the objectives of safe transportation of natural gas and hazardous liquids and protection of the environment.

1. We endorse the inclusion of environmental protection as an express objective of the standards established under the Acts and as part of the reporting requirements. Such a provision is essential to ensure that environmental concerns will be given equal weight in the administration of the Acts. But the mere statement is not enough. To carry out the purpose of this addition to the Acts, there should be a thorough review of present standards and rules by a qualified independent body, experienced in environmental issues, to propose changes that should be considered in order to protect the environment and

1

prevent pollution.

2. H.R. 1489 provides for the addition of references to environmental protection and environmental impact in Section 203 of HLPSA. Similar references are needed in Section 205 (a)

(annual state certifications) and Section 209 (b) (grounds for hazardous facilities orders) of the HLPSA and in the

corresponding sections of the NGPSA so that environmental injury, as well as accidents or hazards to life and property, are covered in these important sections.

3. We support wholeheartedly revocation of the administrative rule that exempts pipelines operated at 20% or less of minimum yield strength from the standards established under HLPSA. But we believe that H.R. 1489, as introduced, would accomplish such revocation in a manner that would leave unclear a fundamental question. H.R. 1489 provides that the "Secretary shall not exempt from regulation under the Act any pipeline facility solely on the basis of the fact that such pipeline facility operates at low internal stress." This provision thus implies that the Secretary has authority under the Act to grant exemptions from its standards. Yet nowhere in the Act is such authority to be found. The Act itself provides some exemptions from its standards, but we believe that the Secretary's authority

* Under the present Act, the Secretary has authority to grant waivers from standards only in specific cases.

2

to establish safety standards does not include the power to grant additional exemptions from those standards

and certainly not

to grant exemptions that do not take into account all the

characteristics of the particular pipeline, including age and location and potential for harm, and that do not require verification of eligibility for exemption.

If Congress intends that the Secretary shall have authority under the Acts to grant exemptions from their standards, then the Acts should be amended to define and circumscribe that authority by providing criteria and procedures as in the manner provided in S. 2323, a bill introduced in the last session of Congress.

-

Public

4. We believe that the HLPSA should be amended to provide for public participation in the consideration and formulation of hazardous facilities orders under Section 209(b). The purpose of such orders is to require corrective action to eliminate significant hazards to life or property (and, as noted above, should also correct adverse impacts on the environment). participation can ensure that such orders meet public concerns that otherwise may not be voiced until after a final order has been issued. At present, proceedings in these matters are closed to the public, and information regarding the proceedings (even including notice of their commencement) is not made available until after final action. NRDC was confronted with this roadblock when it sought to obtain information about the OPS

proceedings regarding the 1990 Exxon pipeline spill in Arthur Kill in New York Harbor. That spill was a calamity of the very greatest concern to all those interested in the welfare of the Port of New York and its environment. The accident resulted from a pipeline rupture and involved the failure of a leak-detection device known by the operator's personnel to be defective. It resulted in the discharge into a sensitive marine environment adjacent to one of the most important wildlife sanctuaries in the region of more than half a million gallons of heating oil. The Coast Guard report concluded that the most likely cause of the rupture was damage from dredging.

When NRDC asked OPS for information regarding its investigation of the Arthur Kill accident and urged that the investigation be conducted with opportunity for public access, we were told by DOT's Research and Special Programs Administration (of which OPS is a part) that it "never opened informal enforcement hearings in safety matters" to the public and did not intend to change this policy. DOT eventually issued an order that it said "resolves the pipeline safety issues" raised following the Arthur Kill accident. The order was consented to by Exxon, following negotiations with DOT, but without any possibility for interested members of the public to be informed as to the issues as DOT saw them or as to the alternative means of dealing with those issues.