FAIRBANKS — Three months before Alyeska Pipeline Service Co.’s February announcement that it was shifting dozens of its workers from Fairbanks to Anchorage, an internal company report questioned the wisdom of the move and its effect on pipeline safety.

The Integrity Management analysis, written in November, stated “there are significant safety and integrity risks” attached to relocating personnel. Alyeska decided to relocate 29 of its Fairbanks-based employees anyway, saying the shift was considered prudent when all factors were considered.

A more thorough analysis determined that the move of the accounting, engineering and Health Safety and Environmental Quality workers would help control costs without sacrificing pipeline safety, according to Alyeska spokeswoman Michelle Egan.

“The company took a broader view about whether those employees should be located in Anchorage,” Egan said.

Egan declined to release any documents supporting the move, saying they are for internal Alyeska use only.

Alyeska’s role in maintaining the trans-Alaska pipeline has come under greater scrutiny in recent months, following several spills, a congressional review of its procedures and a well-publicized report at the truth-out.org website critical of the company’s management style.

Rep. David Guttenberg, D-Fairbanks, was a vocal critic of the personnel move, and said the IM report is more evidence that it was a bad idea. Guttenberg was invited to speak at a U.S. House hearing on pipeline safety in July, and told a Transportation subcommittee that Alyeska made a decision to shift workers to Anchorage without addressing the effect it would have on pipeline safety.

“Their own documents have shown they shouldn’t have done this, and they continue to do it,” Guttenberg said.

The IM report, obtained by the News-Miner, concluded that Fairbanks is a better location for the personnel from the standpoint of business efficiency, regulatory compliance and pipeline safety and integrity.

The report also outlined some examples of Interior-based employees helping to reduce response time to incidents such as a pump station fire, a leak from a rifle shot, flooding damage, and a failed cleaning attempt that plugged the pipeline.

The 7.9-magnitude Denali Fault earthquake shut down the pipeline for nearly three days in 2002, but the report said it would have been down even longer without a local response team.

The IM report also projects a big increase in annual personnel travel — 450 more air travel legs, 10,000 more vehicle miles and 90 additional nights lodging.

Egan said the authors of the report have since softened their stance on potential problems. She said the integrity management director later indicated there “were no immediate safety risks.”

Alyeska Vice President Greg Jones testified at the House hearing on July 15 that the personnel who had written the report had changed their minds.

Rep. Tim Walz, D-Minn., asked that the committee receive statements from the Alyeska officials who had changed their positions. Mary Kerr, a spokeswoman for the House subcommittee, said those documents still hadn’t arrived more than a month after the hearing.

Guttenberg said the loss of jobs in Fairbanks concerns him, but that he wouldn’t typically get involved in the personnel workings of a private company. He said the Alyeska case is different because it could have a direct impact on spill response.

“They just keep dragging their feet trying to get past this, and it just gets more bizarre every day,” he said.

With the personnel shift to Anchorage complete, Egan said, Alyeska doesn’t have regrets.

She said the issue in the IM report that resonated the most was the prediction that the move would result in vacancies in the IM unit. She said some vacancies have indeed occurred, and making sure the unit is appropriately staffed is “an issue we need to keep an eye on.”

Contact staff writer Jeff Richardson at 459-7518.