Jay Inslee: Washington's 1st Congressional District
Issues
Pipeline Safety
Testimony of Congressman Jay Inslee
October 27, 1999
Before the House Transportation Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, Hazardous Materials, and Pipeline Transportation, regarding the Bellingham, Washington Pipeline Incident:
Mr. Chairman: I would first like to thank you for having this hearing today, and also thank Senators Murray and Gorton, and Congressman Metcalf for their attention to this important issue. Although the June 10th Whatcom Creek accident occurred in Mr. Metcalf’s Congressional District, concerns have been raised about the safety of the pipeline all the way down the line. I am here today because the pipeline travels from North to South through my district. My constituents have made it clear to me that as a result of the tragic incident on June 10th, and then the pipeline seam-rupture during hydrostatic tests in September, they have serious concerns about the integrity and reliability of the pipeline.
I have been cautious in response to this tragedy, researching alternate responses to find a solution that is backed on facts and science, not emotion. Following the expression of concern from my constituents, I have discussed this issue with federal regulators, Olympic Pipeline Company officials, local government authorities, constituents, and third-party pipeline experts. To facilitate communication between Olympic Pipeline Company, local elected officials, emergency response departments and my constituents, I held a public meeting on October 8th, in Redmond, WA. I appreciate Olympic Pipeline Company’s willingness to discuss this issue with me and my constituents.
From these meetings and conversations, I’ve learned a few things. First, I strongly believe that the people who live next to this pipeline want, and I believe they deserve, a high level of confidence that the tragedy of Bellingham will not be repeated.
Second, I have also come to the conclusion that Olympic Pipeline Company is in the process of making some positive corporate cultural changes, namely improving on their employee training program and plans to implement the placement of new check valves. In fact, the improvements the company has made point out the need for the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) to require training audits. I believe pipeline workers should have a level of training comparable to airline and nuclear industries.
Third, the company has some further steps it needs to take to regain the confidence and protect the safety of my constituents. After a tragedy of this dimension with everyone knowing what would have happened if the gasoline plume had reached downtown Bellingham, people of our state deserve a high level of confidence- and that requires a high level of testing. I do not believe that smart-pig analysis alone will achieve that level of confidence and safety.
There is a real question as to the health of this pipeline. As a result, I am calling on the Olympic Pipeline Company to perform a hydrostatic test on its sixteen-inch line in the state of Washington, in addition to their smart-pig tests already planned. The people of Washington deserve a high level of confidence and the company needs to provide it.
Neither should this testing be restricted to Lone Star Pipe. Current federal regulations require hydrostatic testing of all pre-1970 ERW pipe of whatever manufacture. Given the hydrostatic test failure of below 125% MOP, the failure on June 10th, the extent of catastrophe that is at issue, and the urbanization that has occurred surrounding the pipe in my district, communities deserve a high level of confidence that can only be achieved through hydrostatic testing.
I would not propose hydrostatic tests if it was avant-garde or experimental. But hydrostatic tests are in current use for several lines in the country and are required every 5 years for intrastate pipelines in California that is over ten years old. In fact, what has come as a surprise to me, I just found out yesterday that the only thing keeping Olympic Pipeline from being required to hydrostatic test the entire line, is the fact it was hydrostaticly tested 35 years ago. 35 years ago. I think there is some point between the 5 year requirement in California, and the 35 years the line has been sitting in the highly corrosive Northwest soil, that hydrostatic tests should be required, particularly in light of the failure of the pipe during the hydrostatic tests in Bellingham.
Hydrostatic tests also benefit the confidence in Olympic Pipeline Company. Another tragedy would seriously jeopardize the industry. It’s in industry’s best interests to do this test. I recognize there is concern that hydrostatic tests may stress the pipeline, but I think that given the federal regulation’s insistence on the practice and its use during initial construction, there must be a level of pressure of hydrostatic testing which will find the weak points of the line, but not harm it in the process.
I do not wish to belittle the value of the smart-pig tests. I have found however, that the smart-pig has limitations. First, it is my understanding that a smart-pig analysis alone will not detect some potential dangers in the line, including seam failure potential on pre-1970 ERW pipe, and possibly some third-party induced damages. Second, the interpretation of the smart-pig test results is subjective. The test results are useful in picking up anomalies in the pipe that may warrant further inspection or replacement. I have come to find out, however, that determination of which anomalies require additional inspection is as much an art as a science. And, as the Mayor of New York can attest, art is very subjective.
The possibility exists that the rupture on June 10th was at least partially due to one or more anomalies detected by a smart-pig analysis voluntarily performed by Olympic Pipeline Company in 1996. The interpreter of those anomalies decided they did not warrant further inspection. Although the June 10th incident may also have been caused by 3rd party damage to the pipe, as I stated earlier, there is doubt as to whether or not a smart-pig could have detected such damage. Further, I am advised that the operation of this particular pipe has, over time, resulted in an inordinate number of pressure surges, which may, over time, weaken the pipe.
In saying this, I am not advocating for blanket hydrostatic testing on all pipelines across the county, and I am not belittling the importance of pipelines to our economy. Pipelines can be effective and safe. The extenuating circumstances which I just described, however, demand such testing on this pipeline at this time.
A smart-pig analysis will take up to a year to complete, and must be performed while the pipeline is in operation. I do not believe my constituents can rest at ease for an entire year with this pipeline operating under their feet, until the company and OPS can assure the line does not have similar defects to those that caused the two ruptures in Bellingham.
Lastly, Mr. Chair, this boils down to being a good neighbor. The pipeline is a neighbor, a very close neighbor of thousands of my constituents. When something like the Bellingham incident happens, there is nothing wrong in asking a neighbor to go the last mile for the sake of the safety of the neighborhood. We are asking Olympic Pipeline Company to do just that.