U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

98–874 PDF 2016

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF TRANSPORTATION’S PIPELINE SAFETY PROGRAM 

(114–35) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 25, 2016 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/ 

committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

ROB WOODALL, Georgia 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia 

CARLOS CURBELO, Florida 

DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

ANDRE ́ CARSON, Indiana 

JANICE HAHN, California 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois 

JARED HUFFMAN, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

TODD ROKITA, Indiana 

JOHN KATKO, New York 

BRIAN BABIN, Texas 

CRESENT HARDY, Nevada 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

JANICE HAHN, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon (Ex Officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vii 

WITNESSES 

PANEL 1 

Hon. Stephen Knight, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, testimony .................................................................................................. 5 

Hon. Brad Sherman, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, testimony .................................................................................................. 5 

Hon. Jackie Speier, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

testimony .............................................................................................................. 5 

PANEL 2 

Hon. Marie Therese Dominguez, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

Responses to questions for the record from subcommittee majority ............ 54 

Responses to questions for the record from subcommittee minority ............ 58 

Andrew J. Black, President and CEO, Association of Oil Pipe Lines: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 

Donald F. Santa, President and CEO, Interstate Natural Gas Association 

of America: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68 

Cheryl Campbell, Senior Vice President, Gas, Xcel Energy, on behalf of the 

American Gas Association: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 76 

Responses to questions for the record from subcommittee majority ............ 100 

Carl Weimer, Executive Director, Pipeline Safety Trust: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 101 

Responses to questions for the record from subcommittee minority ............ 115 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Written testimony of the American Public Gas Association, submitted by 

Hon. Bill Shuster, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania ...................................................................................................................... 122

Response from the American Gas Association to the request for information 

from Hon. John L. Mica, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Florida ............................................................................................................... 130 

ADDITIONS TO THE RECORD 

Letter of May 31, 2016, from H. ‘‘Butch’’ Browning, President, National Association of State Fire Marshals, to Chairman Jeff Denham and Ranking 

Member Michael E. Capuano, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and 

Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................ 134 

Page

VI 

Letter of May 24, 2016, from Kathy Mayo, Executive Director, Pipeline Open 

Data Standard (PODS) Association, to Chairman Bill Shuster and Ranking 

Member Peter A. DeFazio, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure ........................................................................................................................ 137 

vii 


Insert offset folio 1 here 98874.001
viii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 98874.002
ix 


Insert offset folio 3 here 98874.003
x 


Insert offset folio 4 here 98874.004
xi 


Insert offset folio 5 here 98874.005
xii 


Insert offset folio 6 here 98874.006
xiii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 98874.007
xiv 


Insert offset folio 8 here 98874.008
xv 


Insert offset folio 9 here 98874.009
xvi 


Insert offset folio 10 here 98874.010
xvii 


Insert offset folio 11 here 98874.011
xviii 


Insert offset folio 12 here 98874.012
xix 


Insert offset folio 13 here 98874.013
xx 


Insert offset folio 14 here 98874.014
xxi 


Insert offset folio 15 here 98874.015
xxii 


Insert offset folio 16 here 98874.016
xxiii 


Insert offset folio 17 here 98874.017
xxiv 


Insert offset folio 18 here 98874.018
xxv 


Insert offset folio 19 here 98874.019
xxvi 


Insert offset folio 20 here 98874.020
xxvii 


Insert offset folio 21 here 98874.021
(1) 

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION’S PIPELINE 

SAFETY PROGRAM 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Denham (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. DENHAM. The subcommittee will come to order. 

Good morning and welcome to the Subcommittee on Railroads, 

Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials. 

Our hearing today will focus on the reauthorization of the Department of Transportation’s pipeline safety program, which is administered by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, PHMSA. We are glad that they are here with us this 

morning. 

The United States has the largest network of energy pipelines in 

the entire world, and they power nearly every facet of our daily activities. In order to ensure that pipelines continue to be the safest 

and most cost-effective means to transport energy products, diligent oversight of DOT’s [Department of Transportation’s] pipeline 

safety programs is a top priority. 

Pipelines account for the transportation of 64 percent of the energy commodities consumed in the United States. Pipeline safety is 

carried out in a partnership between PHMSA, State regulators, 

and the private sector. 

Over the past decade, private entities and the Government have 

taken many steps to ensure the safety of U.S. pipelines. Congress 

enacted the 2011 pipeline safety bill to strengthen our efforts, and 

we have been carefully monitoring DOT’s progress of completing 

the remaining mandates from the 2011 act. 

This hearing follows two hearings and a roundtable we had last 

year on these pipeline safety issues. 

The 2011 law included 42 congressional mandates, of which only 

26 are complete. Although PHMSA has released a major rulemaking on hazardous liquids requirements, it has yet to produce 

several other important rulemakings. Today we will hear from 

PHMSA and other stakeholders on where all the 2011 act mandates are. 

2 

We will also look towards the next pipeline reauthorization bill, 

which is a top priority of ours this year. We want to ensure that 

this legislation provides regulatory certainty for our citizens, the 

safety of our communities, and for industry stakeholders. 

The bill is going to be a bipartisan bill, and we are looking forward to continuing to work with our colleagues from the Committee on Energy and Commerce as we move a bill forward. 

I look forward to hearing from stakeholders on how we can build 

on the 2011 act and what the 2016 reauthorization needs to accomplish. 

I also look forward to hearing how industry is being proactive in 

its own safety initiatives to ensure best practices for inspections, 

detecting leaks, and other important safety initiatives. 

In closing I want to thank our witnesses for coming today to explore these issues concerning pipeline safety. 

I now recognize Ranking Member Mike Capuano from Massachusetts for any opening statement he may have. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Yes, what he said. I pretty much agree with all of it, and I especially like the idea of getting a bill out this year. I think we can 

make a bipartisan bill. I am looking forward to it, and it will be 

wonderful to have. 

I look forward to hearing our panelists. I particularly welcome 

my colleagues. I know that each of you have important issues in 

your districts and that is why you are here, and I look forward to 

hearing your testimony, and thank you all for being here. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

I will now call on the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Shuster, who also authored the 2011 act which we are talking about 

here today. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you 

and for Mr. Capuano for holding this hearing today. 

I want to welcome our colleagues, which I know each of you have 

great interest in pipeline safety and hazmat issues that we will 

deal with on this legislation. So thank you for being here. 

And also I want to welcome Administrator Dominguez for her 

first appearance before the subcommittee. Welcome. 

Pipeline safety reauthorization is one of the priorities of the committee and certainly of this subcommittee, and I look forward to 

moving it forward with Chairman Denham and Ranking Member 

Capuano. 

As mentioned, I was the chairman in 2011 when we passed the 

last pipeline safety reauthorization. We were also working with our 

colleagues on the Energy and Commerce Committee to develop this 

important piece of legislation. 

In the last bill we wanted risk-based, data-driven processes at 

PHMSA. The 2011 act included a number of significant mandates, 

but PHMSA is behind in completing them. However, these are complex issues. I want the agency to get the rulemakings right, and 

I am glad to see that PHMSA did release one of the major 

rulemakings on hazardous liquids late last year, and I would like 

to hear from them on other items and where they stand. 

The work on this reauthorization needs to make sure that 

PHMSA can stay focused on closing out the 2011 act. I understand 

3 

that PHMSA is currently undergoing reorganization to become 

more data driven in its rulemaking procedures, which is positive, 

and I hope to hear how that reorganization will help the agency 

carry out pipeline safety mission and help PHMSA do a more effective job overseeing pipeline safety. 

I finally would like to ask for unanimous consent to enter into 

the record the written testimony from the American Public Gas Association, which represents many small communities and gas distribution centers. 

I again welcome my colleagues and also the Administrator. 

Without objection? 

Mr. DENHAM. Without objection. 

[The written statement of the American Public Gas Association 

is on pages 122–129.] 

Mr. SHUSTER. And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. I now call the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. DeFazio, for any opening statement he may have. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

According to PHMSA, the number of significant incidents involving gas and hazardous liquid pipelines has increased slightly since 

2010, but you know, pipelines remain one of the safest modes of 

transport: on average, 288 significant pipeline incidents a year, 13 

fatalities, 66 injuries. 

Those numbers are low, but you know, PHMSA set a goal of zero. 

I remember when we had a visionary leader at DOT about 20 years 

ago who talked about zero fatalities in aviation. People thought 

that was not achievable. Well, we have now achieved it. So I would 

hope that we can get to the same place with PHMSA in terms of 

serious incidents, and particularly in terms of any future fatalities 

or serious injuries. 

Obviously one incident can cause catastrophic damage. You 

know, the Enbridge pipeline failure in Marshall, Michigan, spilled 

nearly 1 million gallons of heavy crude—oh, wait a minute, sorry, 

they reclassified it as tar sand so they could save money on taxes— 

into the Kalamazoo River. 

It has been 6 years since that spill, and yet 80,000 gallons of 

heavy crude tar sands remain imbedded in the riverbed along 

shorelines and not recoverable. That kind of thing is inexcusable. 

It also went on for quite a period of time because of problems with 

detection and shutoff, which are issues that are pending with 

PHMSA. 

We had the San Bruno event the same year, which killed eight 

people. That was absolutely an extraordinary incident. 

So those incidents drove us here to pass the 2011 pipeline safety 

bill. Unfortunately, many of the mandates in that bill have not 

been implemented by PHMSA: the automatic shutoffs, which I 

mentioned a moment ago; leak detection, which I mentioned a moment ago; excess flow valves; the expansion of integrity management requirements beyond high consequence areas. 

They only issued a—I just hate this stuff—a notice of proposed 

rulemaking on October 13th, 2015, on the hazardous liquids rule, 

and that took a year to get out of OMB [Office of Management and 

Budget]. I am working with our colleague, Jason Chaffetz, on an 

4 

OMB reform bill. They are a major problem in many, many areas 

of Government. 

But, you know, nothing has been issued on gas transmission 5 

years after enactment. I do not know whether to blame OMB, the 

Secretary or perhaps the prior leadership at PHMSA because the 

agency has had a history of dragging its feet. 

I think the new Administrator is a breath of fresh air in that 

agency. 

Unfortunately, the Senate took the wrong approach on this issue. 

They told PHMSA it could not initiate any new rulemaking until 

all of the outstanding pipeline mandates are completed unless the 

Secretary of Transportation certifies to Congress there is a significant need to move forward. 

That sounds an awful lot like the tombstone rule that we 

imbedded in the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] bill a couple of weeks ago precluding any action to regulate lithium batteries 

until there is another fatal accident. 

So you know, we should not be tying their hands like that, and 

that is not the way to go forward. You know, it applies not only 

to pipelines but to all their activities, which is just extraordinary, 

but you know, the Senate is known for being sloppy in legislating. 

Perhaps they just meant pipelines, but they ended up restricting 

everything. 

So I believe, you know, we have an opportunity on this side to 

do a lot better. We should give them the opportunity to finish what 

they have been tasked to do. I do not think we should add any new 

rulemaking mandates in the reauthorization bill. 

I would like to see us put some things in the bill that could actually help them get the job done and the goals and the objectives 

and the mandates that we put forward in 2011. Also I think we 

could give them authority for emergency order authority, which 

most other agencies which act for public safety do have. They don’t 

if there is an industrywide issue, you know, just like the crude by 

rail issue. 

So I think there are things we can do to make the agency work 

better, but I think the Senate really went down the wrong path, 

and I would hope that we do not choose to follow the Senate in this 

matter. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

We have two panels today. First of all, my esteemed colleagues 

from the great State of California, we welcome them, Steve Knight, 

Brad Sherman and Jackie Speier. 

After their testimony we will have the second panel, which is the 

Honorable Marie Therese Dominguez, Administrator of PHMSA; 

Mr. Andrew Black, president and CEO of the Association of Oil 

Pipe Lines; Mr. Donald Santa, president and CEO, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America; Ms. Cheryl Campbell, senior vice 

president of Gas for Xcel Energy; and Mr. Carl Weimer, executive 

director of the Pipeline Safety Trust. 

I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be 

included in the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

5 

Since your testimony has been part of the record, the subcommittee would request that you keep your oral testimonies to 

less than 5 minutes. 

Mr. Knight, welcome. You may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. STEPHEN KNIGHT, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; HON. 

BRAD SHERMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AND HON. JACKIE SPEIER, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. KNIGHT. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I want to thank the committee for allowing this to happen today. 

You know, on October 23rd, an incident, a national incident happened in my district. It happened to a community where my esteemed colleague lives. It is in the Aliso Canyon gas facility in Porter Ranch, which is in the northern tip of Los Angeles City. 

We had a leak there that is of a proportion that we have not seen 

very often in our lifetimes. An amount of gas leaked out of this facility that would fill the Empire State Building every day. 

This went on for about 4 months until just recently we have been 

able to cap the well and kill the well. This is a facility that has 

115 wells, that has the biggest gas facility west of the Mississippi. 

One of these wells sprung a leak on October 23rd, and like I said, 

for 4 months that leak had continued to go. 

During this time, our priorities were to make sure that the people were taken care of, make sure that as quickly and as safely as 

possible this leak was going to be capped, and in the future make 

sure that this was not going to happen again. So if there was going 

to be legislation, we are going to have to work with the State legislators as much as we worked with the Federal congressional delegation. 

We worked with the families to make sure that they were relocated. Two complete schools were relocated. Those kids will stay relocated through the end of the semester. So they will be at two different schools until the end of the semester, and then they will 

come back to their schools. 

Over 3,000 people have been relocated during this timeframe, 

and again, this has taken 4 months to fix. We are nowhere near 

the end of this tragedy. Getting people back in their homes, getting 

the faith that they are safe, making sure that the other wells have 

been checked, making sure that there are no other leaks has been 

a priority by not just my office, but by Congressman Sherman’s office and the local elected folks. 

The next set of challenges is just this. What do we do at the 

State level? What do we do at the Federal level? 

I have authored legislation, and I know that Congressman Sherman has authored legislation. We are looking at setting standards 

at the Federal level and then making sure that the other 35 or so 

States that have these types of underground facilities, this underground piping, have some sort of a baseline. 

Now, States can take it over. In the State of California we have 

DOGGR [Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources], and we 

have the CPUC [California Public Utilities Commission]. We have 

6 

the Governor’s office. They can take these limits and raise them, 

but there should be some sort of standards. 

This facility is probably the largest facility in the country. Twenty-one million people have something to do with Aliso Canyon for 

their gas or for their electricity in the summer. 

When the leak happened, we found that there were several problems with the mercaptans that went in the air, the benzenes that 

went in the air. We had kids; we had elderly; we had folks that 

had nosebleeds, headaches, could not go to work, all of these types 

of medical problems that happened from the leak. 

Now, over these next couple of months I vow to work to make 

sure that we do have these standards in place, make sure that Federal legislation sets that bar, that baseline, and to make sure that 

the State legislators are doing their part. 

There are already two packages moving forward by the senator 

in the area and by the assemblyman in the area to make sure that 

they have their standards at the State level. 

This is a terrible tragedy. It impacted tens of thousands of people 

in a 5-mile radius. Some people say it is larger than that. I do believe it is larger than the 5-mile radius. This is something that we 

never want to see again, and this will take months if not years to 

build back the faith that this is a safe facility and to make sure 

that the people have the faith that we are doing the right thing. 

Now, next door there is another facility that is also in my district, and that is on El Rancho, and that is another facility that is 

about one-quarter as big as Aliso Canyon. So with those two facilities you have the largest underground gas area in the country, and 

they are within 15 miles. 

So this is something that impacts not just me, not just Congressman Sherman, but all of the people in the area, the 11 million people that live in L.A. [Los Angeles] County, and this is something 

that we take extremely seriously, and I appreciate you having us 

here for this hearing. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Knight. Thank you for your testimony. 

Mr. Sherman, you may proceed. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you for having us here. 

For 117 days the northern Los Angeles community Porter Ranch 

was the victim of the largest natural gas leak in American history. 

My home is about as close as any to a well that leaked 5 to 6 billion cubic feet of methane, methane plus the mercaptan, which is 

the odorant, which turns out to be possibly toxic, and volatile organic compounds, including benzene which is a carcinogen. 

That, Congressman Knight said, an Empire State Building filled 

with gas every day for 117 days. Over 7,500 families including my 

nextdoor neighbors have been forced to relocate for months. Schools 

have been closed, businesses have suffered. 

The industry subculture was that methane could only be a problem if it burned or exploded, and as long as you were a few hundred feet away, everything was fine. 

Now we have discovered that a natural gas leak with mercaptan, 

with volatile organic compounds can be an air toxin 5 miles or Congressman Knight says even further than 5 miles away. 

7 

The U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration, PHMSA, has established Federal 

safety regulations for natural gas transportation, which my colleague from northern California will address, but they have no regulation for natural gas storage. 

Our California regulations are weak. The history will show you— 

this incident will show you how weak. Wells were drilled in the 

1950s, and they were then used to create the fifth largest natural 

gas facility in the country located just blocks outside the Los Angeles City limits. It stores 160 billion cubic feet of natural gas that 

is roughly 80 billion of working gas, 80 billion of cubic gas. 

The pipes are eligible for Social Security. That is how old they 

are, but even in the 1950s they knew that there should be a subsurface safety valve, and they installed one on well SS25. In 1979 

they took it out and did not replace it, and here is the bad part. 

And they were in compliance with the nonexistent Federal regulations and with the weak State regulations because the State regulations just require you have a subsurface safety valve if you were 

in 300 feet of a home or school. 

Yet we have learned that this is dangerous 5 miles away. 

The testing that was required every year was just to determine 

whether there was actual leaking gas at that moment, not testing 

to find whether there were anomalies in the pipe and to repair 

those anomalies. That is why along with 17 colleagues I have introduced the Gas Storage Safety Act and Congressman Knight has a 

similar bill that would require PHMSA to promulgate and enforce 

safety standards for natural gas storage facilities. 

In addition, it creates a grant program to do some research to 

find a less toxic version of mercaptan so that we do not put something in the gas for safety and then discover that it is causing 

health problems for a 5-mile radius. 

We need tough national standards. So far PHMSA has issued an 

advisory asking please, pretty please, for the industry to follow the 

American Petroleum Institute’s standards. At a minimum we 

should immediately require that those standards be followed and 

then move up from there, not just ask. 

And if you are concerned that the API standards might be too 

tough, I have checked with Bernie. The American Petroleum Institute is not a socialist organization. 

Not only do we have to look at the safety of each storage facility 

and each well, but you need a robust system. As Mr. Capuano has 

heard me say many times, too big to fail is too big to exist. This 

facility by itself provides 80 percent of the natural gas storage for 

the L.A. metro area. So our regulators are told it may not be safe 

to reopen, but it is necessary to reopen if people are going to generate electricity and be able to heat their homes and heat water in 

the Los Angeles area. 

Never again should a major metropolitan area be dependent or 

so dependent on just one facility. 

So I look forward to working with you to address this issue. I am 

relatively confident my own State will get tough regulations because there is huge political pressure to do so, but this incident 

needs to be an alarm clock that goes off and is a wake-up call, and 

8 

it needs to be loud enough to be heard here in Washington 3,000 

miles away. 

And I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. Speier, welcome back. Thank you for joining us this morning. 

Ms. SPEIER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. To Ranking Member 

Capuano and Chairman Shuster, thank you again for the opportunity to come before you. 

I was here about a year ago to speak to you about the last gas 

pipeline safety measures at PHMSA, and here we are again. It has 

been 51⁄2 years since the explosion in San Bruno that killed 8 of 

my constituents, leveled more than 30 homes, destroyed a neighborhood, and I cannot go back to them and face them eye to eye 

and say that things are any better on the Federal level. 

Once again we have a bipartisan group of lawmakers who are 

willing to point out that PHMSA has not yet implemented the most 

important mandates in the 2011 law. Now, mind you one of those 

mandates was to strike the grandfather clause that allows pipes 

that are older than the 1970s from being subject to any kind of regulation. 

Now, how difficult is it to strike a line from the existing law? 

So all of that pre-1970s hype is still not subject to the kind of 

rigor that we impose on more recent pipes. It does not make a lot 

of sense. 

The 2 years that I spent on this issue working with the National 

Transportation Safety Board, looking at PHMSA, meeting with the 

former Administrator of PHMSA, has taught me one thing. The relationship between PHMSA and the industry is too cozy, much like 

the California Public Utilities Commission has too cozy a relationship with the utilities in California. That is really a disaster in the 

making as we have seen over and over again. 

So what we have here is a situation where curbing bad corporate 

behavior is not a priority, and for all of the people in this country 

who are concerned about the lack of accountability in our institutions, we do not have to look very far, and PHMSA is a great example. 

I hope our new Administrator is going to shake it up, but when 

you have a law that has been put into effect back in 2011 and we 

still do not have the regulations out, you know, shame on us, too, 

for not just yanking the funding from that agency until they get 

their act together. 

Now, I will tell you that there is a litany of disasters that have 

happened, San Bruno; Mayflower, Arkansas; Porter Ranch in California. What it appears is that these corporations seem to think 

that destroying people’s lives, destroying their homes, destroying 

the quality of their lives is just the cost of doing business. 

This cavalier attitude is made worse by a dangerous inconsistency in the law. For hazardous materials there are criminal penalties for a person who knowingly or willfully or recklessly violates 

the law, but for gas pipelines, it is only a standard of knowingly 

and willfully. So you cannot actually get to that bad behavior because even though it is reckless, it is not knowingly or willfully 

sometimes. 

9 

This difference has had real consequences, and we only have to 

look again at PG&E [Pacific Gas and Electric Company]. Just last 

month a former PG&E employee said management ordered her to 

destroy documents, and that she found a telltale pre-blast analysis 

of the San Bruno pipe in the garbage. 

Now, was that reckless? Was it knowingly and willfully? Maybe 

knowingly and willfully, but you could not be certain. You could 

certainly call that reckless, but again, that standard does not 

apply. 

The same holds true for an incident in Carmel, California, just 

2 years ago where PG&E’s careless recordkeeping practices caused 

an explosion that flattened a house which was fortunately vacant. 

There is plenty of evidence that the current law is not enough 

to stop corporate wrongdoing. In 2011, a leak from an 83-year-old 

cast-iron pipe in Allentown, Pennsylvania, I believe in the chairman’s district, caused a blast that killed five people. 

In 2012, a gas pipeline explosion outside Charleston, West Virginia, destroyed several properties. The list goes on and on. 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, let those responsible for 

these tragedies be held responsible for their actions or for their 

lack of actions. We need PHMSA to be a strong voice for safety, not 

a toothless tiger and not a lapdog for the industry. 

And we need a fair criminal statute to ensure that those in industry who are currently apologists for lethal mediocrity are held 

responsible for the lives they take. Please hold gas pipelines to the 

same legal standard as hazardous material transportation. 

I thank you and I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. I thank you to the Members on our first panel. We 

will now go to our second panel. 

I would like to welcome our witnesses. And we will start this 

morning on our second panel with Administrator Dominguez. 

Thank you for joining us. We welcome your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. MARIE THERESE DOMINGUEZ, ADMINISTRATOR, PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY 

ADMINISTRATION; ANDREW J. BLACK, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

ASSOCIATION OF OIL PIPE LINES; DONALD F. SANTA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION 

OF AMERICA; CHERYL CAMPBELL, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, 

GAS, XCEL ENERGY, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION; AND CARL WEIMER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

PIPELINE SAFETY TRUST 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Capuano, 

members of the subcommittee, thank you very much for inviting 

me to testify today on the reauthorization of the U.S. Department 

of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s pipeline safety program. 

PHMSA operates in a dynamic and challenging environment. 

The demand for our work has increased, as has the complexity and 

scope of our mission and responsibilities. The development of new 

energy resources, advancements in technology and the use of hazardous materials in everyday products impact transportation safety. 

10 

Recent incidents and increased public awareness and sensitivity 

to safety hazards and environmental consequences have resulted in 

increased scrutiny of the agency and a demand that we become 

proactive, innovative, and forward looking in all that we do. 

Addressing the mandates in the Pipeline Safety Act of 2011 is a 

priority for PHMSA. The act included 42 new congressional mandates to advance PHMSA’s safety mission, and we have completed 

26 mandates to date. 

Since I was appointed last summer, we have made progress in 

addressing four outstanding rulemakings from the act, including 

publishing a final rule on pipeline damage prevention programs, 

and proposing rulemakings on expanding the use of excess flow 

valves and distribution lines, operator qualification, cost recovery, 

and accident notification, and a significant rule addressing the 

safety of hazardous liquid pipelines. 

We are currently working to issue our proposed rulemaking on 

natural gas transmission within the next month. 

Congress has made investments in PHMSA, providing 100 new 

positions for the pipeline safety program alone in the last year, and 

we have filled over 91 percent of these positions. Moving forward 

we must continue to utilize the investments that Congress has provided wisely. 

Over the past 6 months I have worked to better understand 

PHMSA’s strengths, capability gaps, and areas for improvement. 

We have undertaken an organizational assessment that evaluated 

the agency’s structure and processes. This assessment provided 

PHMSA’s leadership team deeper insight into an organization 

where safety is a personal value for all of our talented and dedicated employees and highlighted critical investment areas. 

As a result, PHMSA has updated its strategic framework, recognizing the need to improve our capacity to leverage data and economic analysis, promote continuous improvement in safety performance through the establishment of safety management systems 

both within the agency and across industry, and by creating a division that will support consistency in mission execution. 

This new framework, called PHMSA 2021, was directly informed 

by PHMSA employees and will allow us to be more predictive, consistent, and responsive as we fulfill our mission of protecting people 

and the environment by advancing the safe transportation of energy and other hazardous materials that are essential to daily lives 

of all Americans. 

PHMSA 2021 will allow us to better prioritize our work and be 

proactive in informing, planning, and execution. It will also allow 

us to be more predictive in our efforts to mitigate future safety 

issues and to implement data-driven, risk-based inspections, leading our regulated communities in a direction that powers our economy, cultivates innovation, and prioritizes safety. 

Thank you for continuing to invest in PHMSA. I look forward to 

continuing to work with the Congress to reauthorize PHMSA’s 

pipeline safety program, and I would be pleased to answer any 

questions you may have. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Dominguez. 

Mr. Black, you may proceed. 

11 

Mr. BLACK. Hi. I am Andy Black, president and CEO of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines. 

AOPL represents transmission pipeline operators who deliver 

crude oil, refined products like gasoline, diesel fuel and jet fuel, 

and natural gas liquids, such as propane and methane. 

I am also testifying today on behalf of the American Petroleum 

Institute. 

Our U.S. pipelines extend over 199,000 miles across the country, 

safely delivering more than 16.2 billion barrels of crude oil and energy products a year. Pipelines play a critical role in delivering energy to American workers and families. 

Americans use the energy our pipelines deliver in their cars and 

trucks to commute to work or drive on the job; provide rural heating and crop drying and support good-paying manufacturing jobs. 

The average barrel of crude oil or petroleum products reaches its 

destination safely by pipeline greater than 99.99 percent of the 

time. According to PHMSA data, significant liquids pipeline incidents that could affect high consequence areas are down 8 percent 

over the last 5 years. Significant liquid pipeline incidents per mile 

that are over 50 barrels in size are down 19 percent over the last 

5 years. 

But even with these positive pipeline safety performance numbers, the member companies of AOPL and API are constantly 

working to improve pipeline safety further. Last year operators 

completed development of a number of industrywide recommended 

practices and technical reports to improve our ability to detect 

pipeline cracking, integrate safety data, manage safety efforts holistically, manage leak detection programs, and better plan for and 

respond to pipeline emergencies. 

This year we turned to the implementation of these safety recommendations industrywide. A prime example is our effort to encourage and assist implementation of API Recommended Practice 

1173 for Pipeline Safety Management Systems. Recommended by 

NTSB [National Transportation Safety Board] and developed in 

conjunction with PHMSA and State pipeline regulators, the tool is 

helping pipeline operators comprehensively manage all of the safety efforts across the company. 

The aviation, nuclear power, and chemical manufacturing industries have benefitted from safety management systems. Now more 

pipeline operators are benefitting, too. 

In 2016, pipeline operators will also complete expansion of industrywide guidance on river crossings, develop a new recommended 

practice for construction quality management, and update our industrywide recommended practice for pipeline integrity program 

management, API RP 1160. 

This last safety improvement action brings us to last summer’s 

pipeline release near Refugio, California. We echo the words of 

Transportation Secretary Foxx last week calling the preliminary incident report from PHMSA an important step forward that will 

help us learn what went wrong so that everyone involved can take 

action and ensure that it does not happen again. Our members are 

committed to using the lessons learned from the incident to take 

that industrywide action to prevent a release like this from happening again. 

12 

PHMSA’s preliminary factual findings could be described as the 

‘‘what’’ of an incident. We expect PHMSA’s final report later this 

year will contain root cause analysis and recommendations describing the still unknown ‘‘how’’ and ‘‘why’’ this event occurred. At a 

minimum, we know there is an opportunity for further industrywide discussion and perhaps guidance for those operators that use 

a specific type of pipeline involved with that release, insulated pipe 

transporting heated crude. 

As part of our update of RP 1160, industrywide integrity management guidance, we will ensure that learnings from industrywide 

review of that release and PHMSA incident report recommendations are reviewed and incorporated where appropriate. This effort 

will be finished later this year more expeditiously than could occur 

through an agency notice and comment rulemaking process. 

Turning to the next reauthorization of the national pipeline safety program, there is still much left to do for PHMSA from the 2011 

law. PHMSA is working to finalize a liquid pipeline rulemaking, as 

Administrator Dominguez said. Another PHMSA rulemaking on 

valves is likely to be proposed this spring. 

We commend Congress for its recent oversight of PHMSA which 

has resulted in the Administration releasing several proposals and 

promising additional ones, and we encourage your continued oversight. 

PHMSA under its new leadership has certainly expressed its resolve to move more expeditiously to meet its statutory and regulatory mandates. Pipeline operators have not stood by and instead 

have advanced safety initiatives on inspection technology, cracking, 

data integration, safety, leak detection and emergency response. 

With the numerous recent industry initiatives addressing current 

pipeline safety topics and additional PHMSA regulatory actions 

still to come, we encourage Congress to reauthorize the pipeline 

safety program without adding significant new provisions. 

Thank you for inviting me here, and I look forward to answering 

any questions. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Santa, you may proceed. 

Mr. SANTA. Good morning, Chairman Denham, Chairman Shuster, Ranking Member Capuano and members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Donald Santa, and I am president and CEO of the 

Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, or INGAA. 

INGAA represents interstate natural gas transmission pipeline 

operators in the U.S. and Canada. The pipeline systems operated 

by INGAA’s 24-member companies are analogous to the Interstate 

Highway System, transporting natural gas across State and regional boundaries. 

My written statement references the numerous pipeline safety efforts that have been undertaken by industry and policymakers over 

many years. We have a safe industry, but we know we can and 

should be doing more. 

In the wake of the natural gas pipeline accident in California in 

2010, INGAA’s board of directors committed the association and its 

member companies to the goal of zero pipeline safety incidents. 

While this is a tough and some would say impossible goal to meet, 

the emphasis is in the right place, the pursuit of excellence. 

13 

As progress towards INGAA’s goal of zero incidents is made, we 

also want to see regulations finalized that will consistently move 

us in the same direction. As you know, several key mandates from 

the 2011 reauthorization have not been completed by the Pipeline 

and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration or even proposed 

for comment. 

We recognize that these delays have been caused at least in part 

by issues beyond PHMSA’s control. We, therefore, hope Congress 

will continue to press PHMSA and more broadly the Obama administration to accelerate fulfillment of the 2011 mandates. 

It is worth recalling that the title of the most recent law reauthorizing the Pipeline Safety Act is the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory 

Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011. Regulatory certainty is 

imperative. 

INGAA has three principal goals for the pending reauthorization. 

First, we support reauthorization of the pipeline safety program 

during this Congress at funding levels that are consistent with the 

recent Senate Commerce Committee action. 

Establishing authorized funding levels for appropriators to consider remains an important element of legislative oversight. 

Second, INGAA believes that PHMSA in the near term should 

dedicate the bulk of its rulemaking efforts to completing the 2011 

act mandates, and we hope the Congress will emphasize this imperative in the reauthorization. 

Many critical regulatory questions remain, and until these questions are answered, it is difficult to move forward on either a voluntary or a compliance basis. Save for the issue I will mention 

next, PHMSA should focus on eliminating its backlog before moving on to new issues. 

Our third principal goal and the one exception to the preceding 

statement would be new regulations for underground natural gas 

storage. INGAA identified safety regulations for underground natural gas storage as an area that needed attention as far back as 

2011. While the recent accident in California has intensified interest in this issue, the need for Federal standards and regulation 

predated this development. 

INGAA suggests that Congress direct PHMSA to adopt regulations for underground natural gas storage facilities by a date certain; use newly developed consensus standards as the basis for 

such regulation; and allow PHMSA to fund this regulation through 

new user fees assessed on storage operators. 

The Senate legislation and several House bills would meet these 

objectives. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I am happy 

to answer any questions from the subcommittee. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Ms. Campbell. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Good morning, Chairman Denham and members 

of the committee. My name is Cheryl Campbell, and I am the senior vice president of gas for Xcel Energy. We provide the energy 

that powers millions of homes and businesses across eight Western 

and Midwestern States. 

Headquartered in Minneapolis, we are an industry leader in responsibly reducing carbon emissions and producing and delivering 

14 

clean energy solutions from a variety of renewable sources at competitive prices. 

Today I am testifying on behalf of the American Gas Association, 

which represents more than 200 local distribution companies, also 

known as LDCs, which serve more than 71 million customers. 

AGA’s member companies operate 21⁄2 million miles of underground pipelines, safely delivering clean, affordable natural gas to 

residential, commercial and industrial customers. 

LDCs provide the last critical link in the energy delivery chain, 

connecting interstate pipelines directly to homes and businesses. 

Our focus every day is ensuring that we keep the gas flowing safely 

and reliably. 

As part of an agreement with the Federal Government, most 

States assume primary responsibility for safety regulation of LDCs, 

as well as intrastate transmission pipelines. State governments are 

encouraged to adopt minimum standards promulgated by the U.S. 

Department of Transportation. 

Many States also choose to adopt standards that are more stringent than the Federal rules. 

Additionally, our companies are in close contact with State pipeline safety inspectors, and we work in a collaborative manner that 

provides for far more inspections than required under Federal law. 

LDCs do not operate strictly in a compliance culture but rather 

in a culture of proactive collaborative engagement. Each company 

employs trained safety professionals; provides ongoing employee 

evaluations and safety training; conducts rigorous system inspection, testing, maintenance, repair and replacement programs; and 

educates the public on natural gas safety. 

AGA’s Commitment to Enhancing Safety adopted in 2011 provides a summary statement of those commitments, and as an aside, 

AGA member companies have included the API Recommended 

Practice for storage, API RP 1170 and 1171. It was recently approved by the board and incorporated in what was in my written 

testimony. 

The association has also developed numerous pipeline safety initiatives focused on raising the bar on safety, including peer-to-peer 

reviews and best practice forums to share best practices and lessons learned throughout the industry. 

Each year LDCs spend approximately $22 billion on safety. Approximately half of that is on voluntary activities. The Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006 and the 

Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 

2011, both outline several programs to help continue to improve 

the safety of the industry. AGA member companies have implemented aspects of these programs either through DOT regulations 

or on a voluntary basis. 

Many of these programs are in their infancy in terms of implementation, and we encourage Congress to allow these programs to 

develop and mature in order to realize their full impact. 

In the case of the unanimously passed 2011 act which dealt with 

a number of key issues, several of the required regulations have 

yet to be promulgated or finalized. Progress is being made, and 

thus, we strongly encourage the committee to be judicious in making major changes to the law at this time. 

15 

PHMSA has issued a number of significant guidance documents, 

released the results of a congressionally mandated study on leak 

detection and created a database to track progress in replacing 

cast-iron and bare steel pipelines. 

Likewise, the industry, NARUC [National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners], State regulators and State legislators have combined to produce significant pipeline safety improvements over the last several years. We should continue building on 

that record. 

With regard to the replacement of cast-iron mains, the quantity 

of these mains continues to steadily decrease and now makes up 

less than 2 percent of the overall inventory in the Nation. The industry estimates that it will cost over $80 billion to complete this 

replacement. Natural gas utilities are working with our legislators 

and regulators to accelerate this process, and today 39 States and 

the District of Columbia have adopted specific rate mechanisms to 

facilitate accelerated replacement of pipelines no longer fit for service. 

The cumulative result of all these important actions is that industry is replacing cast-iron pipe as well as bare steel as quickly 

as possible in a safe and cost-effective manner. 

In addition to what I have highlighted today, my written testimony provides industry updates on incident notification, data collection and information sharing, and I would be happy to answer 

any questions you have. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Weimer. 

Mr. WEIMER. Good morning, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Capuano, and members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to speak today on the important subject of pipeline safety. 

The Pipeline Safety Trust came into being after a pipeline disaster that occurred nearly 17 years ago. At that time we were 

asked by the Federal courts to create a watchdog organization over 

both the industry and the regulators. We have been trying to fulfill 

that vision ever since, but the increase in the number of significant 

incidents over the past decade driven primarily by releases from 

liquid pipelines from causes well within pipeline operators’ control 

makes us sometime question whether our message is being heard. 

Today I would like to dedicate my testimony in the memory of 

Peter Hayes, who I met shortly after a Chevron pipeline dumped 

oil into Red Butte Creek in Salt Lake City. Mr. Hayes, a schoolteacher, was raising his family in a home that sat on the banks of 

Red Butte Creek, and he was extremely concerned about the possible long-term health effects to the people in that area who were 

not evacuated and experienced many different health symptoms associated with exposure to crude oil. 

He pushed hard for better emergency response and for someone 

to follow up with a study to determine whether people so exposed 

would experience any long-term health effects. No one ever did 

such a study, and in a tragic twist of fate, Mr. Hayes came down 

with the rare lung disease that may, in part, be caused by such exposure to environmental pollutants. He died last year. 

16 

The need for studies on the health effects from exposure to oil 

spills has long been a void in our pipeline safety system and was 

recently again called for by a National Academy of Sciences panel. 

Often in these hearings the focus in on how PHMSA has failed 

to implement various mandates or moved too slowly on regulatory 

initiatives. While we agree that those things are all important and 

certainly fair game at such hearings, today we would like to focus 

our testimony on how the pipeline safety system that Congress has 

created also has much to do with PHMSA’s inability to get things 

done. 

PHMSA can only implement rules that Congress authorizes them 

to enact, and there are many things in the statutes that could be 

changed to remove unnecessary barriers to more effective and efficient pipeline safety. 

The pipeline safety statutes are the responsibility of Congress 

and today we will speak to issues where Congress needs to act if 

there is a real desire to improve pipeline safety. 

Some of the things that Congress could change fairly easily 

would be to provide PHMSA with emergency order authority like 

other transportation agencies have. This would allow PHMSA to 

quickly correct dangerous industrywide problems, such as the lack 

of minimum rules for underground gas storage or the lack of valid 

verification for maximum allowable operating pressures. 

At the same time, by eliminating the unique and duplicative 

cost-benefit requirements in the pipeline statute, normal 

rulemakings could proceed at more than the current glacial speed. 

Congress also needs to harmonize the criminal penalty section of 

PHMSA statutes so in the rare case when pipeline companies willfully or recklessly cause harm to people or the environment they 

can be prosecuted as necessary, and Congress should also add a 

strong mandamus clause to allow Federal courts to force PHMSA 

to fulfill their duties when it is the agency dragging its feet. 

The National Academy of Sciences, as I mentioned earlier, recently completed a congressionally mandated study that showed 

there were a number of serious issues with the way PHMSA oversees spill response planning and the contents of those plans. We 

hope you will rapidly move to ensure that PHMSA is reviewing 

these plans not only for completeness, but also for efficacy as other 

agencies do and require companies to provide clear information so 

first responders know what they are up against. 

We also ask that you honor the memory of Peter Hayes and request an additional study by the National Academy of Sciences to 

help alleviate the lack of information about how to better protect 

people from the short- and long-term health effects of pipeline failures. 

Finally, we have a few concerns with the language included in 

the reauthorization bill that the Senate has been working on and 

hope you can address these concerns in your own bill. In particular, 

we think the wording in the statutory preference section of the 

Senate bill may actually slow needed rules. 

We also think the language regarding underground gas storage 

needs to be clarified to ensure that an open rulemaking process 

happens and that whatever is passed allows States to set stricter 

standards for facilities within their borders. 

17 

And finally we think the language in that bill regarding small 

LNG (liquefied natural gas) facilities pushes PHMSA too much to 

rely on industry development standards and hard-to-enforce, riskbased systems. 

I see my time is about up. So I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I would be glad to answer questions 

now or in the future. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Weimer. 

One of the things that we are going to be struggling with or at 

least having a great deal of discussions about as we are finalizing 

and continuing to work on our reauthorization bill is the 2011 bill, 

46 different mandates. Only 26 of them are completed already. 

I know that there is some work in progress on some of those, but 

before we get into those mandates themselves, you and I, Ms. 

Dominguez, have talked about the reorganization. You did not 

touch on that much in your opening testimony. I was hoping you 

could expand upon that a little bit now, but specifically how the reorganization is going to help you to meet these 2011 mandates. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Thank you, Chairman Denham. 

There are two things that we are looking to do at PHMSA. One, 

we have created a strategic framework that addresses our ability 

to actually be more proactive, to look at market trend analysis, understand what is occurring in a very changing energy environment. 

Clearly the energy market in this country has fundamentally 

transformed over the last few years, let alone the last decade, and 

in an ability for PHMSA to remain cutting edge, to actually be 

more proactive and be more predictive, we want to establish two 

particular offices that will help drive information collection, data 

analysis, and a more rigorous economic analysis of our regulatory 

framework. 

So bottom line, create two positions. One would be an executive 

director position, which would be a career position at the agency. 

That would help drive operational consistency, application of our 

programs, and really be the force that drives, again, consistency 

across the agency. 

The other one is an Office of Planning and Data Analysis. That 

would be the place where we would actually do more performancebased planning, look at doing a whole bunch of data collection and 

analysis that would inform our rulemakings, but also inform the 

way we are better in forming our regulations so that, one, we are 

timely in our regulations. We are looking to see what is down the 

road and knowing what the energy market is providing and being 

more predictive. And so we have got the data. We are ready to go. 

We can do some rigorous economic analysis and move regulations 

forward in a more rigorous way. 

We are not waiting to collect data. We are not being reactive to 

situations, but we are actually being more forward leaning. 

So that is the intention with the reorganization. 

Mr. DENHAM. OK. With that reorganization now put in place, we 

would ask you to give us a little more definitive timelines on the 

26 mandates that are not complete yet. 

The hazardous liquid rule, I think you said that was going to be 

done in the next several months. If you could define that specifiVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:19 Sep 15, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\114\RR\2-25-1~1\98874.TXT JEAN
18 

cally now and give us a better idea of when specifically that one 

will be done, and then we can go through. 

I know you had some timelines on some of the 26. We would expect a timeline on all 26. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. So, in particular, the hazardous liquid rule, the 

notice of proposed rulemaking was published on October 13th of 

last year. Comments were received in January. The advisory committee met in February. We are in the process of finalizing that 

rule right now. 

We are going through not just the comments, but working 

through all the details of the hazardous liquid rule. We hope to 

submit that shortly to the Department for final review, and then 

it will go to OMB, and we would hope to publish it in the coming 

months as the final rule. That is the hazardous liquid rule. 

The other very important rule, I think, that is pending from the 

2011 act is the gas transmission rule. The gas transmission rule 

has been something that I have personally worked on. Both the 

hazardous liquid rule and the gas transmission rule are two of the 

most significant rulemakings that have been in the works since I 

have come onboard. 

Again, we have got the hazardous liquid rule going. We are also 

doing the same on the gas transmission rule. We literally hope that 

within a matter of weeks here, we will be publishing the notice of 

proposed rulemaking on the gas transmission rule. 

That will include a number of the requirements that are in the 

mandate from the act of 2011 and hope to cover those. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

My time has expired. I now recognize the ranking member for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the panel today. 

Ms. Dominguez, have you got the authority right now to immediately implement the API standards relative to underground storage facilities? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. We do have the authority to promulgate rulemaking. 

Mr. CAPUANO. No, that is not what I asked. Do you have the authority to immediately implement them right now? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. We have the authority to take these standards 

and turn them into rules, yes. 

Mr. CAPUANO. All right. So that—answer my question. I am trying to be friendly. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Yes, we do. 

Mr. CAPUANO. To do it right now. Not a rule that takes 2 years 

to get passed because OMB does not do a damn thing. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. There is just—— 

Mr. CAPUANO. I know. You do not have to comment on that last 

part. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. So there are different standards for rulemaking. 

So it is meant to be as you know a methodical process. If we were 

to go to—— 

Mr. CAPUANO. No, no, no. I just want to know one simple thing. 

Do you have the authority right now to go back to your office and 

19 

implement the API standards for underground gas tanks starting 

now? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. No. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Why not? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Because we have to go through a rulemaking 

process, and that—— 

Mr. CAPUANO. Because you do not have emergency order authority; is that right? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Correct. 

Mr. CAPUANO. If you had that authority could you do it? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. If we had, yes. 

Mr. CAPUANO. OK. I say that because I think you should have 

emergency order authority. Corrective action authority takes too 

damn long and jeopardizes people’s lives when we know there is a 

problem. 

When there is a problem like the one we know about in California, I think thoughtful regulators should have the ability to immediately implement especially standards that are already accepted by the industry, and to have to wait any longer, that is crazy. 

We need to get emergency order authority into this legislation. 

And I guess I want to go to Mr. Santa. Mr. Santa, my colleague, 

Ms. Speier, made a comment that PHMSA and the utility companies and others are a little bit too cozy. Do you agree with that? 

Mr. SANTA. No, sir, Mr. Capuano, I do not agree with that. 

Mr. CAPUANO. OK. 

Mr. SANTA. I believe we are the regulated entities. We are subject to their authority. 

Mr. CAPUANO. Just out of curiosity, one of my concerns is as I 

understand it, and I read an article from the San Francisco Chronicle that is actually several years old now that basically said twothirds of the studies, two-thirds of the studies conducted by 

PHMSA are funded by the utility companies themselves that 

PHMSA regulates. 

And when you fund a study, and I do not mind some funding 

that is blind funding. That does not bother me. That happens all 

the time in business, but when it is not blind funding, but when 

the funder is the regulated person who also then manages the 

study, who can have faith that that study is neutral and not selfserving and does not look a little too cozy? 

Mr. SANTA. Sir, first of all, all of PHMSA’s funding comes from 

user fees that are assessed from the industry. 

Mr. CAPUANO. I do not have a problem with the funding as long 

as it is blind funding. 

Mr. SANTA. And also PHMSA has advisory committees that include representatives not only from the regulated entities, but also 

from the State regulators, public advocates such as Mr. Weimer. 

Mr. CAPUANO. All well and good. You do not think there is a 

problem when a regulated entity and I mean not just here, but any 

regulated entity also not just pays for, but then hires and conducts 

the study that then says what safety regulations should be? 

Who is the regulator? That does not happen in any other industry. I happen to come from a district where research is what we 

do. More than any other segment of this country or, in fact, the 

20 

world, research is done in my district and is funded all the time 

by private companies. 

I do not have a problem with the funding. Those private companies fund them in a blind study so that they can’t affect the outcome. That does not mean they are not advised. That does not 

mean that their opinions are not listened to. It means that they 

can’t control the study. Therefore, we have faith in the results that 

those studies are at least the opinions of independent scientific research as opposed to simply self-serving anointments by the very 

people who are trying to get something done. 

You do not think that is a problem? 

Mr. SANTA. Mr. Capuano, I think that it is important for the 

process to have integrity, and I think that if PHMSA believed that 

what was being produced did not have that integrity it has the 

ability to conduct it in a—— 

Mr. CAPUANO. Here you go, Ms. Dominguez. We will be talking 

again. These are not my favorite forums. I prefer roundtables 

where we can have discussions, but when it comes to these studies, 

you can expect to be talking to me. 

Again, it is not the funding and not about advising. I actually 

think that is important. It is about making sure that the results 

of those studies are independent and seen as independent by the 

rest of the world, and I think without that, those studies are maybe 

not worthless, but become very suspect and the agency becomes 

very suspect as being seen as too cozy with the people it regulates. 

With that my time is expiring, and I thank the chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Capuano. 

Mr. Hanna. 

Mr. HANNA. I yield my time back to the chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Hanna. 

Ms. Dominguez, what role does PHMSA play in regards to underground gas storage currently? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. With regard to underground gas storage, we 

have worked for many years with the States and looked primarily 

to the States to regulate in this area. Given the incredible occurrences at Aliso Canyon, I actually had the opportunity to go out 

there and visit last week with Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz 

and take a look firsthand at what happened, and it is very clear 

that there is a role for the Federal Government to play in terms 

of regulating underground storage. 

There has been a lot of work that has been done, including development of two recommended practices in this area, one for reservoirs and one for salt caverns that could be addressed moving 

forward. 

In doing so, we would actually look to work very comprehensively 

with the States to make sure that we worked with them and understood some of their particular geologic formations. 

Mr. DENHAM. If you rely on the States, does that not create a 

patchwork across the country? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I think the bottom line is if PHMSA has the authority to actually set Federal regulations in this area, if we did 

that, in doing so as we move forward in regulating in this area, we 

would set the minimum standards. The States have every ability 

to go above and beyond those standards and actually provide more 

21 

details that are specific to their States, specific to their concerns, 

whatever their geologic formations may be, but again, they can go 

above our minimum requirements. 

Mr. DENHAM. Currently, PHMSA’s authority stops at the pipeline 

even though the pipeline goes into the reservoir? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Currently our authority stops at the well. We 

do not go down the hole at all. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

You recently sent out a safety advisory in response to the Aliso 

Canyon underground gas storage. Can you tell us about the advisory, why you sent it out, what the goal of the advisory was? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. We issued an advisory opinion on February 5th 

to all operators of natural gas storage facilities. We asked the operators to review their operations, identify potential leaks and failures, identify any threats, whether it is corrosion, chemical or mechanical damage, any kind of material deficiency that they may 

have. 

The advisory bulletin also asked operators to look at the location 

and operations of any kind of shutoff valves or isolation valves that 

they may have and make sure that they are testing their emergency plans as well. 

So it was a fairly comprehensive advisory bulletin to all operators of underground storage across the country. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Ms. Campbell, Representative Stephen Knight has introduced an 

act that would authorize minimum Federal standards. What position does AGA and the industry take on that proposal? 

And what Federal standards do you think would be helpful in 

this area? 

Ms. CAMPBELL. AGA supports the adoption of the API standards 

for natural gas storage fields as a Federal minimum standard and 

also the ability of the States to add additional standards as they 

deem necessary for their area. 

Mr. DENHAM. And does AGA support Mr. Knight’s bill? 

Ms. CAMPBELL. I believe so, yes. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Santa, pipeline safety is a partnership between PHMSA and 

the States. PHMSA sets standards for interstate facilities and 

States take those standards and apply them to interstate facilities. 

Can you describe how preemption works? 

Are the States able to retain the flexibility with interstate pipeline safety while still meeting Federal standards? 

Mr. SANTA. Mr. Chairman, the States with regard to the regulation of intrastate natural gas transmission pipelines and distribution pipelines can go beyond the Federal standards if they are consistent with them. However, with regard to interstate facilities, the 

facilities that are operated by the members of INGAA, we are subject to the PHMSA promulgated standards. 

There are some instances in which PHMSA, I believe, has delegated to the States the ability to do inspections. However, enforcement is within the province of PHMSA as the Federal regulator 

over interstate facilities. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

22 

Mr. Larsen is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to welcome Carl Weimer here today. He is also a 

Whatcom County Council member in my district and the Pipeline 

Safety Trust is located in the top floor of a renovated house in 

downtown Bellingham, Washington, and they do a lot with a little, 

and so welcome. Welcome, Carl. 

And I also have a few questions for you as well, as it happens. 

I did not want you to fly all the way out here and not have any 

questions asked of you. 

But the San Bruno disaster is an example where emergency 

order authority could have addressed some systematic deficiencies 

immediately, and we talked a little bit about emergency order authority. 

Are there other instances that you believe would back up an argument for emergency order authority? 

Mr. WEIMER. Yes, certainly. Thank you for the question. 

There have been a number of instances in the last 10 years that 

I can think of. You know, San Bruno was a good example where 

it became apparent that that particular company was not interpreting the rules correctly. 

We heard from other companies around the country perhaps they 

were not either, but through the corrective action order, PHMSA 

could only deal with PG&E. They could not deal industrywide. 

That is where emergency orders could step in. 

We have seen certain types of pipe that it has become, after accidents, obvious that it is a problematic type of pipe. You can correct 

the one company that is dealing with the pipe. You cannot correct 

things industrywide. So emergency order authority would allow 

PHMSA to move forward on things rapidly to correct things that 

become known to be an industrywide problem. 

Mr. LARSEN. Is there a reason that you’ve looked at why PHMSA 

does not have it versus these other Federal agencies that do have 

emergency order authority? 

Mr. WEIMER. I do not know why it is not in the statute. I know 

there are other agencies like the Federal Railroad Administration 

that do have that authority. I think others do also, and it certainly 

is needed. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes. Do you have experience with the State inspection program in Washington State? 

Mr. WEIMER. Yes. I am actually appointed by the Governor to be 

on an oversight committee of that program. 

Mr. LARSEN. Yes, and how does that work? Is that working in 

Washington State in terms of PHMSA delegation of inspection? 

Mr. WEIMER. It is, and that is one of the areas where the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission actually has a citizen-led pipeline safety committee that looks at what the industry 

and what the regulators are doing, and it works pretty well. 

I think that gives an added layer in Washington State of inspectors looking at interstate pipelines. As Mr. Santa said, they cannot 

set regulations that go above what the minimum Federal standards 

are, but it does give us another layer of inspectors, and I think the 

Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission takes that 

and does a lot of added value to that. 

23 

They post all of the inspection results for both interstate and 

intrastate on their Web site. You know, I think that is the only 

State that I know of that posts actually the inspection results. 

Mr. LARSEN. And finally for you, can you comment on the funding pipeline safety information grants to communities and what the 

law allows and what we are doing now for that? 

Mr. WEIMER. Right. I think that was a grant program that was 

authorized in the 2002 bill. We helped push that through. It is a 

fairly small grant program that allows communities to hire technical expertise to help them understand pipeline issues. A lot of 

good stuff has come out of it. 

A lot of communities have upgraded their GIS [geographic information system] so that their public works people and their emergency responders actually understand where pipelines are in those 

communities; have done a lot of first responder training, Call Before You Dig training. It is allowed in particular communities to 

have a concern where you have a particular pipeline to hire an expert to come in. 

We recently did one of those in California in the East Bay area 

where a neighborhood association asked us to come in and look at 

it, and they had a very big concern with a particular pipeline 

owner. When we looked at it, we pointed out to them that particular pipeline probably was not as high a risk as they thought, 

but we pointed out some issues where local governments really 

needed to think about how they were training their emergency responders in school districts that had pipelines running right next 

to schools and had never thought about evacuation plans for that. 

So I think it has been a valuable program that helps build trust 

in pipeline safety. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thanks. 

And, Ms. Dominguez, can you comment on the State program 

and what your plans are for that in this PHMSA 2021 plan? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Well, the State program has been a very successful program. It is our way to actually work very directly with 

the States, and we want to make sure that not only that that continues to be a robust program where the State inspectors carry out, 

as was stated, the Federal requirements, but that it go above and 

beyond what any particular State requirements may be. 

We hope to continue to reinvest in that and make sure that it 

is just as robust moving forward. 

Mr. LARSEN. Well, I appreciate hearing that as you are moving 

forward and reorganizing that that stays a major part of what you 

do. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Absolutely. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. HANNA [presiding]. Mr. Nolan. 

Mr. NOLAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to thank the panel for being here. I particularly welcome Ms. Campbell from our great Minnesota-based company and 

the great work that you do. We are very proud of that company and 

all of its performance standards and services that you provide. 

Thank you for being here. 

24 

I want to bring to the attention of the committee as well as the 

panel something that has not been brought up. So I want to give 

the committee a little heads-up on it when we get around to the 

markup, and that is the Pipeline Jobs and Safety Act that I have 

introduced into the Congress here and want the committee to carefully consider and for a variety of reasons. 

First of all, what the bill would do, and I intend to offer it as 

an amendment if given the opportunity, is to require that steel tubular goods produced and used in the pipeline industry after the 

enactment of our reauthorization be required to be U.S. steel and 

made from products that are mined and processed, quite frankly 

here in the United States. 

I do so for several reasons. First is not necessarily in order of importance either, but one of them is the economics of it. We have 

15,000 steelworkers in America that are on the bench and unemployed at this moment. They estimate for every one of them there 

is another six or seven people who are laid off. Grocery stores 

closed down and drug stores closed down and communities devastated and families devastated. 

By that standard there are probably at least 120,000 people who 

are suffering. Clearly it is in our national interest that they have 

a strong and viable steel industry for this country. Thirteen percent 

of the Nation’s gross national product goes through the locks at the 

Soo Narrows, which gives Lake Superior access to the Great Lakes. 

They say that if that lock, for example, were devastated for one 

reason or another, obsolescence, which quite frankly is a possibility 

as it is greatly in need of repair, but they have Army protection 

there against war or acts of terrorism. 

They say if that lock for any reason, including the collapse of 

American mining and steel, were not there, it would throw the 

country into a great depression with 13 percent of the Nation’s 

gross national product going through that. 

But of equal and great importance is the safety factor. In talking 

with the men and women who do the welding and do the construction of these pipelines, I know it is anecdotal, but they have attested time and time again to the superior quality of U.S. steel. I 

did some work myself in the pipeline industry in my youth, selling 

pipelines in the Middle East, and the smart ones all waned to use 

U.S. steel even though it was cheaper some other places, but because of the superior quality and the benefits that related to that 

with regard to production and safety. 

But I have also seen a number of studies where expert analysts, 

you know, have looked at U.S. steel and tubular goods in particular 

and compared them to the steel that is produced in some of these 

other countries, and clearly U.S. steel always ends up being superior. 

And then lastly, I have seen some studies and analysis that show 

that, well, imported steel and tubular goods in particular are required to meet U.S. standards. The fact is they are not inspected, 

and they are not regulated the way U.S. steel is in its production 

process. 

So there is an important safety factor here. Thirty percent of the 

steel that is being used in this country comes from foreign countries, that steel of an inferior quality, and so I want to just give 

25 

everybody a heads-up on the importance of this and my intentions 

to pursue it, given the opportunity under the new regular order 

proceedings that Speaker Ryan is calling for, which of course calls 

for open rules and committee consideration of any and all things 

that emanate from this Congress of the United States. 

And I applaud Speaker Ryan for calling for the reestablishment 

of regular order. That is how we find common ground. That is 

where we come together. That is how we produce nonpartisan, bipartisan legislative efforts to fix things and get things done for this 

country. 

So thank you for the moment, and thank you for your testimony, 

and I look forward to working with the members of the committee 

and the industry and all the workers and people involved. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. DENHAM [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Nolan. 

I recognize Mr. Barletta for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In my district and across the State of Pennsylvania we are rooted 

in the heart of the Marcellus shale. I have seen new access to 

cheap natural gas prices lower my constituents’ heating and electricity bills, bring new manufacturing to our area, and save jobs at 

power plants that would have been shut down by the President’s 

war on coal. 

During the height of the Marcellus shale boom, we had more 

than 1,000 wells drilled, but no way to move the gas to market. 

That is like being in college and having a keg of beer without a tap. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BARLETTA. Still energy costs in surrounding States remain 

high and have not been able to take advantage of the cheap energy 

in the Marcellus shale because of the lack of pipeline infrastructure. 

Now, in my district we have multiple pipelines in the process of 

being built, and this has raised my constituents’ awareness of both 

the new and old pipelines in their communities. 

Ms. Campbell, you mentioned significant investment in repair 

and replacement programs that focus on updating the old cast-iron 

infrastructure. Can you explain the steps natural gas companies 

are taking to ensure that the pipeline infrastructure that is already 

in the ground is safe? 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Certainly. It kind of comes in a lot of different 

categories. It depends on what service it is under, but effectively 

there is a pretty rigorous process of inspection. Transmission lines 

have a very prescriptive process that we go through to ensure that 

they are safe, and when you find an issue or problem, they are 

classified to be repaired immediately or during a certain time period. 

For our distribution systems, there are regular requirements for 

inspection, leak surveys, for instance, cathodic protection surveys, 

things of that nature, and again, pipeline companies’ operators 

take action based on what they see. 

In a number of instances companies go above and beyond those 

minimum requirements. When you believe you have an issue or 

risk that needs to be addressed, we might, for instance, do additional surveys, leak surveys. We might proactively replace pipeline. 

26 

We also, by the way, watch carefully what PHMSA puts out on 

its Web sites and watch what other companies are finding, lessons 

learned from other companies, and investigate our own infrastructure and determine whether or not we need to take proactive action 

based on the results of those other issues. 

Mr. BARLETTA. Thank you. 

Administrator, at a field hearing last September in Billings, 

Montana, on pipeline safety, you stated that PHMSA would issue 

a proposed rulemaking on the safety of natural gas transmission by 

the end of 2015. While that deadline was not met, I was glad to 

read in your testimony that you are moving forward with this rule 

and that it should be complete within a month, which I take it to 

mean March 25th, 2016; is that correct? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. We are working diligently on it, and I really do 

hope that it is out within the next few weeks, yes. 

Mr. BARLETTA. My constituents’ energy companies and I, we all 

need these deadlines to be met and for PHMSA to issue its guidance so that we can be confident in the quality of our energy infrastructure safety. 

How are you prioritizing this and other rules in light of the action needed to respond to recent incidents, as well as the many new 

and ongoing pipeline projects in Pennsylvania and across the country? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Thank you for the question. 

As I stated in my testimony, completing the requirements of the 

2011 act are absolutely a priority for PHMSA. We are addressing 

some of the most significant ones first, including the hazardous liquid rule, which we have moved last fall, and now with the gas 

transmission rule we are doing the same. 

That said, there is always ongoing emerging risk that is identified in different ways. Just recently underground storage is clearly 

on the table now, given the incident in Aliso Canyon. 

So the bottom line is that PHMSA actually needs to not only be 

an agency that addresses risk. We actually need to be more forward-thinking and be able to identify some of these emerging 

trends before they actually occur, and part of the PHMSA 2021 

strategy is actually to make sure that we have those capabilities 

in place, we are able to move forward with some aggressive rulemaking and do it in a timely way. 

Mr. BARLETTA. For those of you in the private sector building infrastructure right now, have you made your long-term capital infrastructure plans absent the guidelines that have continually been 

delayed and when you do not know the regulatory challenges down 

the road? 

I am going to have to be quick because my time is expiring here. 

Mr. SANTA. Might I respond to that, Mr. Barletta? 

Mr. BARLETTA. Sure. 

Mr. SANTA. We are committed to our safety commitments and 

goal of zero incidents. By the same token I think there is some risk 

when you do not have the standards out there. For example, some 

of the testing that must be done is expensive. It requires taking 

pipelines out of service, and there is the risk that, for example, a 

pipeline company might test pursuant the voluntary program and 

27 

then find out when PHMSA puts out the rules that it needs to repeat that because it did not quite meet it. 

So I think that having that certainty of knowing that what we 

are committed to do is consistent with what PHMSA will require 

of us in the rules I think will be very helpful. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Barletta. 

Ms. Hahn is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you, Chairman Denham, for holding this hearing. 

As the chairman knows and actually called for another hearing 

on an issue specifically related to my district in Los Angeles, we 

had a pipeline spill 2 years ago in Wilmington, a working class 

community near the Port of Los Angeles. Over 1,000 gallons was 

spilled into this residential neighborhood. 

I remember running over there that morning of the spill and the 

smell was so nauseating, and then the residents had to deal with 

jackhammers tearing up the streets to locate the leak. Some people 

could not even get out of their houses because of the heavy equipment on a residential street to even go to work. 

At the time of the rupture there was confusion over the classification of the pipeline. Phillips 66 had classified this pipeline as 

idle, a category that apparently does not exist. When they bought 

the pipeline, they were told by the previous operator that it was 

empty. 

The State of California and PHMSA were told it was empty. So 

in 15 years it was never inspected. No one ever verified that the 

pipeline was empty, and my residents, of course, paid a price for 

that. I think that oil spill endangered the health and safety of 

many of my constituents as well as property damage. 

So I am reintroducing legislation today that will ensure that a 

company purchasing a pipeline does its due diligence and inspects 

the status of the pipelines they have purchased—I think it is reasonable to say within 180 days of the sale—but I believe there 

needs to be a third-party verification by either PHMSA or a State 

authority, and I hope, Chairman Denham, you will work with me 

as we reauthorize PHMSA to maybe include this in the legislation. 

The other thing that really upset me and my residents was at 

the end of the day Phillips was only fined $75,000 for this egregious act of misidentifying a pipeline, making up a category of idle, 

and causing enormous health and safety risk to my constituents. 

So, Administrator Dominguez, you know, I have been asking for 

better oversight of our pipelines. Can you share with us today how 

you believe PHMSA has improved pipeline oversight, particularly 

instances like this? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Thank you for the question. 

I think that there were a lot of lessons learned as a result of the 

incident that occurred in your district. First and foremost, our regulations require, as you stated, there is not an idle pipeline. It is 

either operating or it is not operating, and the requirements need 

to be met for both of those incidents. 

So moving forward, you know, again, there were a lot of lessons 

that were learned and applied and how we can actually better work 

with operators. 

28 

Ms. HAHN. How do we close that loophole, you know, without my 

legislation? How do we close the loophole of a company purchasing 

a pipeline and just sort of having the previous owner say it is 

empty? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Well, there are requirements in place right now 

for how any operator actually uses their pipeline. So if it is not in, 

quote-unquote, current use, the bottom line is there are requirements for how it is supposed to be operating. 

So if it is not filled with a particular gas or liquid, there are requirements, especially in a liquid situation, for how it should be 

treated, and so—— 

Ms. HAHN. And what is the verification of a purchased pipeline 

by a new operator? Is there a third party? Is it you? Is it the State? 

Who says whether or not everybody is telling the truth? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I am not aware that there is a national 

verification process or not, but I would be happy to look at it. 

Ms. HAHN. Good. Thank you. Because I think that is what, you 

know, our constituents are hoping from the Federal Government, 

that we sort of have this third-party verification. 

You know, one of the other issues was particularly in Wilmington 

and very populated Los Angeles County, this is considered a high 

consequence area because there are so many underground pipelines 

running underneath the streets of this residential community, and 

last year I asked the Acting PHMSA Administrator about pipelines 

in these so-called high consequence areas. 

Do you know if we have made any progress to increase the safety 

in these high consequence areas besides just alerting them to evacuation procedures? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Certainly in the hazardous liquid role we looked 

at how we actually address incidents of liquid in high consequence 

areas, but also as we move forward in the gas rule, we are also 

looking to identify opportunities that will look all kinds of consequences. 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Thank you. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Hahn. 

Mr. Mica, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MICA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have a couple of questions, first for Ms. Dominguez. 

Recently API and AOPL released some new recommended practices for improving safety management systems. Did you participate in the development of those recommended practices? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Yes, we did. 

Mr. MICA. You did? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Absolutely. 

Mr. MICA. And maybe I could ask Mr. Black. Can you take a 

minute and maybe tell us the safety management systems; describe 

what you have recommended and how you think they will improve 

safety of pipelines? 

Mr. BLACK. This was an extraordinary effort done under the 

American Petroleum Institute, recommended by the National 

Transportation Safety Board to develop a safety management system program unique to pipelines. We worked with PHMSA. 

PHMSA staff participated at every step of the way. The NTSB had 

29 

the opportunity to watch it as it moved. We brought State regulators along and also our companions in the gas transmission distribution sector. 

Mr. MICA. Tell me though specifically. OK. Everybody was cooperating. 

Mr. BLACK. Sure. 

Mr. MICA. Tell me specifically what safety recommendations, 

again, what we will see and what you expect the results to be. 

Mr. BLACK. Thank you, Congressman. 

It provides guidance to a company on how to manage safety efforts holistically across the company from line managers to line employees, middle managers to CEOs and how to continuously improve. It has got a continuous cycle of plan, do, check and adjust, 

and PHMSA has cheered us on. It has encouraged every pipeline 

operator to implement that. 

One of our major initiatives this year is to try to make every 

company aware of it and to educate them and encourage their implementation of this. 

Mr. MICA. And that is a voluntary compliance? 

Mr. BLACK. Yes. 

Mr. MICA. OK. PHMSA, I guess, has checked off, and you all are 

on the same page, and you feel that again, this will provide us a 

better measure of safety? 

Mr. BLACK. Well, we know that PHMSA is watching carefully. 

We know the NTSB said that this effort exceeded its expectation. 

PHMSA has said in settings that safety management systems require companies to go beyond prescriptive regulations, and the 

worst thing you could do right now is try to just somehow measure 

compliance with the safety management system. 

Mr. MICA. But the compliance is strictly voluntary. This is not 

mandated by PHMSA, is it? 

You have not incorporated this into your mandate? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. No, we have not, but I—— 

Mr. MICA. You are using this as the new standard in evaluating 

on that basis and then what do you do? Write them up if they are 

not meeting the standard or what? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. What we have done is actually—— 

Mr. MICA. Because the standard really is not something that you 

have. This is a voluntary new standard, right? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. It was a collaborative effort to develop a recommended practice. 

Mr. MICA. Should that be more codified in regulations or law or 

something? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. What I have said very directly and what we 

have proposed in our strategic framework is that moving to a safety management system is imperative for the industry. The work 

that has been done on the recommended practice is a great step 

forward in actually moving in that direction. 

Mr. MICA. But technically you have no ability to enforce the 

higher standards of this sort of agreed upon new standard, right? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. We have not said that we are actually looking 

to regulate in this area. The first step forward is actually to, first 

and foremost, educate everyone, industry, all of our stakeholders. 

30 

Mr. MICA. Would you anticipate codifying in a regulation some 

of these? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I would never take codification off the table, but 

I think that first and foremost we have seen in other transportation modes like aviation that voluntary compliance is actually 

one of the most integral parts of how we collect data voluntarily, 

have a third party look at it, identify risk, and that is actually 

what will reduce—— 

Mr. MICA. And I support that. I think that industry working with 

Government regulatory agencies needs to cooperate. But, again, 

you want the highest standards. You also want those to be met, 

and if you agree on them, I am not sure if you develop some system 

to identify noncompliance with what they have agreed on. 

Just a last question. In the 2011 pipeline bill, and this might 

have been asked. I was not here. We put some provisions to accelerate the replacement of cast-iron pipes. This is for Chery Campbell. And I want to know how much progress we have made since 

2011. 

Has that been mentioned here? 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Off the top of my head, I cannot give you exact 

numbers. 

Mr. MICA. Can you check that and make it part of the record? 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Absolutely. 

Mr. MICA. I would just like to say, you know, you pass a law. You 

put in some new standards, and then you want to see what the result is. We had some issues before and we tried to put improvements in and work with the industry to make those improvements, 

and some of that was replacement, I believe, of the cast-iron pipes, 

and if that could be made a part of the record I would appreciate 

it. Maybe you could respond back. 

Ms. CAMPBELL. Absolutely, we can do that. 

[The information can be found on pages 130–133.] 

Mr. MICA. I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Mica. 

Ms. Esty, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. ESTY. Thank you, Chairman Denham and Ranking Member 

Capuano, for holding this hearing on the reauthorization of DOT’s 

pipeline safety program. 

This is what happens when you have four hearings before noon. 

So I apologize. 

I want to thank my colleagues, too, from California for their appearing today and really underscoring the important role we all 

play in ensuring the safety of the American public. 

In Connecticut we know all too well the consequences that can 

happen from procedures not being followed. In 2010 we lost six 

workers with the explosion of a natural gas facility right as it was 

nearing completion. 

So we have important work to do, and I have seen the effects 

right in my own State. 

Safety is paramount when it comes to producing and transporting energy across the United States, and I too am frustrated 

as you have heard from others up here about the lack of progress 

in ensuring all of the criteria are being met in fulfilling the 2011 

31 

law. We need to be making forward progress in each and every one 

of those elements. 

And I hope that PHMSA and this committee can work together 

to improve pipeline safety in the United States so that we can 

avoid tragic accidents in the future. 

Before I get to my questions, I want to add my voice in support 

of ensuring that PHMSA has emergency order authority to protect 

public safety. It just makes no sense that you lack this authority, 

and as we have seen particularly with changes in the energy composition in this country, it is particularly important that you be accorded this authority, and I hope we can work together to ensure 

that that happens sooner than later. 

So, Administrator Dominguez, a couple of questions for you. In 

an October 2015 notice of proposed rulemaking, PHMSA indicated 

that it was considering whether to require emerging technologies 

to be considered when evaluating types of leak detection systems 

that are appropriate for a particular pipeline and that PHMSA will 

consider in its report to us to Congress on pipeline safety whether 

the use of specific leak detection technologies should be required. 

I would encourage PHMSA to address this issue in that report, 

and I would ask you whether you know whether PHMSA is going 

to be addressing this issue when writing the regulations, and specifically, will PHMSA be making specific recommendations about 

types of technologies to be used in certain circumstances? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Thank you for the question. 

I believe you were referring to a rule. I believe it was the hazardous liquid rule. That is a proposed rulemaking that we issued 

in October of last year, which indeed required looking at leak detection systems for both new and existing hazardous liquid lines. 

So there is a provision in that notice of proposed rulemaking to 

do exactly that. 

Ms. ESTY. That is a question that I know historically agencies 

understandably have been reluctant to specify particular technologies because the technologies change, but there are new technologies coming online that are vastly superior to what we have 

been using, and I guess the question is are you going to either be 

specifying new technologies or at least setting standards that are 

in accordance with what new technologies now allow us to achieve? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I agree with you that there are emerging technologies constantly on the forefront of advancement. That said, one 

of the things that we are looking at as one of the mandates that 

is in the 2011 act is looking at how we best addressed leak detection, but a good portion of that is also on rupture detection to actually understand the sensitivity of any particular line. 

So as one, we have been investing very heavily in the R&D [research and development] on leak detection. About 10 percent of our 

overall R&D dollars that Congress has provided has gone to research in leak detection. 

Moving forward we want to make sure that we advance and continue to understand all of the technology that is emerging, and as 

we do so, we will look to regulate particularly on the areas that we 

think are very clear right now based on the data that we have in 

particular on rupture detection, and then we will move forward on 

leak detection. 

32 

Ms. ESTY. All right. Thank you very much. I think it is particularly important that we do support the R&D efforts, but continue 

to raise those standards, especially as we again are becoming more 

reliant on this for basic energy for so much of the country. It is important that we continue to raise those standards in accordance 

with what is going to best protect the American public. 

So please let us know if there is anything that we need to do on 

our end to ensure that we do not lock in stone a lower standard 

than is possible, and I guess that is part of my concern, that we 

lock ourselves into the past rather than moving forward in a safer 

direction. 

Thank you very much, and I yield back. 

Mr. ROKITA [presiding]. I thank the gentlelady. 

I am Todd Rokita from Indiana, acting as chairman temporarily, 

and because of that I am going to recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. ROKITA. No, I was next in line, for the record. 

Thank you all for your comments today so far. I will start with 

Administrator Dominguez. 

Do you think that PHMSA has so many mandates, most given 

by Congress, that they have yet to meet that we should look at devolving actually more oversight and inspections to the States? 

I know that currently States have approximately 80 percent of 

intrastate pipeline inspections, but could that increase even more 

or have we reached the limit of State capacity? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Thank you for the question, sir. 

I think the Congress has clearly recognized the need for Federal 

oversight of pipelines, and with the recent investment in the omnibus from a year ago we got 100 new pipeline inspector positions. 

We have been not only hiring very quickly, but training all of those 

new inspectors. 

As we do so, PHMSA runs a training and qualifications center 

out in Oklahoma City, and we are also training a number of the 

State inspectors. They really are our partners and help us do our 

job on a daily basis. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you, but my question was to devolution. I 

mean, could they be doing more? Could we transfer more power to 

the State level instead of in your office? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I think that there is definitely a very significant 

role for Federal oversight in this area and for the Feds to continue 

to work with our State partners as we move forward. 

Mr. ROKITA. Right. I am not saying eliminate your authority, but 

should we give more to the States? Yes or no? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I think that the balance that exists right now 

is a good balance. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. Administrator Dominguez, going now with your 

budget authority, $149 billion in fiscal year 2015, more than double 

the agency’s budget in fiscal year 2006, what is that increase going 

towards? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Primarily the inspectors that we just talked 

about. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. And looking at how we would train them and 

deploy them. 

33 

Mr. ROKITA. Are you able to hire enough inspectors? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I will tell you that it has been an interesting 

process. So 6 months ago when I came onboard oil prices were 

through the roof and competition was steep with industry to hire 

people. 

That has changed, and we have been able to really bring some 

great people onboard, and we are able to reach our 91 percent hiring at this point in time. We will get to 100 percent here hopefully 

by the end of March. 

That said, I think, you know, the bottom line is the economy is 

constantly going to be changing, and we need to make sure that we 

are in a position regardless of what the economic state is to be able 

to bring people onboard to serve in these positions. 

Mr. ROKITA. So to that end does your outreach strategy include— 

I am going to get parochial here for a minute—does it include Purdue University, one of the best engineering schools in the country? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I am familiar with the Boilermakers. 

Mr. ROKITA. OK. I would suggest I would be happy to facilitate 

a meeting if we are not applying. I think they would serve you 

well, and they would be thrilled to know that they have opportunities at your agency. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I would be happy to work with you on that. 

Mr. ROKITA. And to be even State inspectors to my previous 

question. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I will tell you that I have had the opportunity 

in previous jobs to work with the engineering students from Purdue and, indeed, they do produce great folks. 

Mr. ROKITA. Yes. So just a little seed for you there. 

And I do not know. Maybe you already are. It was just an open 

question. So honestly I am happy to help facilitate that. 

Mr. Black, continuing on with my parochialism, I guess, my Indiana constituents appreciate the importance of energy delivered by 

pipeline, gasoline and diesel for driving, propane for heating and 

drying, but my constituents also need to know that the pipelines 

are safe. 

What industrywide actions are pipeline operators taking to improve pipeline safety so I do not have to deal with this? 

Mr. BLACK. So liquid pipeline operators spent $2.2 billion in 

2014, the last year we have collected data on managing the pipeline safety. So it is evaluating those pipelines, inspecting them, and 

doing repairs when necessary. 

We operate under a full series of PHMSA codes on the operation 

of a pipeline, title 49, 195.452 requires an extensive integrity management program where pipeline operators have to assess pipelines 

that could affect high consequence areas and review the inspection 

results and take actions by pipeline accordingly. 

So there is a full set of regulations and administrative activity 

to continue to improve pipeline safety. 

Mr. ROKITA. Are you satisfied with the record? 

Mr. BLACK. Well, our goal is zero incidence, and we are never 

there. We are proud of the safety record now. We are the safest 

mode, but we are working to get better. 

Mr. ROKITA. Thank you. 

34 

I know I am over, but before going to Mr. Lipinski, let me ask 

one short question to close this out. 

Mr. Santa, do you feel PHMSA has the resources and authority 

to properly conduct safety checks on the lines or do you feel that 

we could be doing more? Is the industry taking steps to do any selfregulation? 

Mr. SANTA. First, I believe PHMSA does have the resources that 

they need to do it, as has been noted. Their appropriation has gone 

up in recent years and is giving them that capability. Beyond compliance with the PHMSA rules like others have mentioned on this 

panel from the industry, our respective boards have adopted safety 

programs with the goal of zero incidence. We are pursuing those 

programs and getting out ahead of this. 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank you all. 

Mr. Lipinski, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Thank you. 

I want to start off by thanking Chairman Denham and Ranking 

Member Capuano for holding the hearing today, and I look forward 

to moving ahead with the reauthorization of pipeline safety legislation. 

Illinois is a key pipeline hub for crude, natural gas and refined 

products, and certainly my district is home to many, many miles 

of pipeline, though my constituents really don’t know that. Most 

people don’t know that, understand that. 

Now, this means that they do not know how important these are, 

but unfortunately a 2011 spill in Romeoville highlighted that there 

are pipelines there and also highlighted that we need to have a 

greater focus, I believe, on safety and prevention. 

So I wanted to look at a couple of ways to do this. First I want 

to look at the use of drones. Rulemaking on leak detection standards is still in progress, I understand, but new technologies are 

emerging that could make proactive inspections more efficient and 

less costly for operators. 

I also serve on the Science, Space, and Technology Committee 

where we have examined the use of unmanned aerial systems. I 

am cochair of the Unmanned Systems Caucus here. So I am very 

interested in the use of these systems. 

At this subcommittee’s April 2015 hearing, PHMSA testified that 

some companies are already using these systems, but I am aware 

that obtaining this section 333 exemption from the FAA can be a 

very lengthy process. 

So I want to ask a question. Let me just open this up to everyone 

here, but especially to Mr. Santa and Mr. Black. Do you think 

there is better opportunity for better collaboration between your industry, PHMSA, and the FAA to expedite the use of UAS for pipeline inspection? 

I also want to ask the Administrator that question if you think 

more can be done on this. 

Mr. Santa? 

Mr. SANTA. Yes, Mr. Lipinski. As you note, a lot of the inspections of pipeline rights-of-way have been done by aerial inspection, 

and so certainly the ability to use unmanned vehicles to do that offers an opportunity. We, in fact, have talked to some vendors who 

35 

have got some interesting technologies in terms of being able to 

really optimize that. 

In addition, remote sensing technologies can be valuable in terms 

of the types of studies that need to be done in connection with permitting for new pipelines. As a matter of fact, there is legislation 

pending before the Energy and Commerce Committee in terms of 

authorizing that and specifying to Federal agencies that they 

should accept that in terms of satisfying the requirements for surveys and inspections. 

So I think there is a lot of potential here to improve the effectiveness by the use of these vehicles, and we certainly would be interested in pursuing that. 

Mr. BLACK. You are absolutely right, Congressman. There are 

safety benefits that come from aerial patrols. Right now PHMSA 

regulations require operators to conduct aerial patrols, but now of 

course they are manned. We would be very interested in the ability 

to use unmanned aerial surveillance. 

Like you, I am aware that one of the issues in the FAA rulemaking is the requirement right now that an operator stay within 

a line of sight. For long linear infrastructure like pipelines, that is 

not practical. So we would need some changes to the FAA regulations on UAS to be able to use those vehicles to patrol a pipeline 

and we could accomplish great things. 

My understanding, if somebody is along that right-of-way getting 

ready to dig and did not call the one-call program, we would have 

that evidence. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. Is there anything you think could be done better 

to get this technology out there more quickly? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. We have been working not only with our partners at FAA, but across the board to look at any and all technologies that are available for leak detection and other inspection 

capabilities. So I would not take anything off the table, and I think 

there is opportunity moving forward. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. All right. If the chair will let me ask a second question I will try to make this as short as possible. 

I know that a big issue is excavation causing ruptures to pipelines. The last reauthorization directed PHMSA to collaborate with 

pipeline operators to collect geospatial data to improve the accuracy 

of National Pipeline Mapping Systems. 

So my two questions: do we have good mapping now? 

And let me just also throw this in there. Is there a possibility, 

and I know everyone has a smartphone; does this give us more of 

an opportunity to use this mobile technology rather than or in addition to the Call Before You Dig Program? 

Do you think that is a possibility to also have that opportunity 

to know where pipelines are before digging? 

Anyone? Mr. Black. 

Mr. BLACK. You said ‘‘or’’ or ‘‘in addition to,’’ and I think it is 

very important, Congressman, that any use of mapping to identify 

pipelines be ‘‘in addition to’’ the one-call notification program. We 

do not want anybody to think that there is a reason not to call. 

If you call, there is a 99 percent chance that nobody is going to 

strike a pipeline. You cannot count on the mapping being as good 

36 

as those utility locators who spray paint and put out those flags 

and really help you identify where to dig. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I would have to say that it is critical, one, to 

make sure that the call is made for 811, but, two, as we move forward on the National Pipeline Mapping System, we have, indeed, 

opportunity to improve with more specificity some of the data that 

PHMSA presently collects and informs the NPMS system. 

So we are continuing to work on that and provide more data to 

that system, but first and foremost I think the first line of defense 

is 811, but we also need to make sure that people understand 

what’s there and then appropriately share it, given security concerns, only when necessary. 

Mr. LIPINSKI. All right. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ROKITA. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman’s time has 

expired. 

We are going to have a one committee member round two. The 

gentlelady is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. 

Just being, you know, a member of the L.A. County delegation 

here in Congress, I really felt it was incumbent on me to just ask 

a couple of questions about the Porter Ranch incident. While that 

is not in my particular congressional district, certainly in L.A. 

County it has been a huge problem. 

Mr. Weimer, I was just going to ask you a couple of questions 

about that, and I appreciate my colleagues, Congress Members 

Knight, Sherman and Speier, for coming and talking about the devastations in their own districts as it related to pipeline and gas 

storage issues. 

So, you know, Mr. Sherman has introduced a bill and so has Mr. 

Knight. Now, in Mr. Knight’s bill, the PHMSA regulation would 

rely heavily on consensus standards, which in the case of underground gas storage refers to standards developed by the API. 

I know I am concerned about the way these standards were developed and whether they are truly the best practices or rather just 

an average practice of the industry. 

In your opinion are these practices just a ratification of the current average practice in the industry? 

Should they go further? 

And are consensus standards generated by the industry the best 

way to identify adequate safety measures? 

Mr. WEIMER. Well, thank you for the question. 

Certainly underground gas storage is not something that we focused on much. We think that from what we have seen of the recommended practices that they would be a good first step. We think 

that it needs to go farther than that, and I think that is some of 

the difference in the language between the two congressional bills 

that have been introduced. 

So, you know, if there was a way maybe through emergency 

order authority that those standards could be implemented as soon 

as possible, that would be good, but we would like to see a regular 

rulemaking that would open it up so the public, academia, other 

folks could chime in and make sure it is as strong as possible. 

37 

We have heard mention that there are concerns with the standards that are being pushed forward, that they do not include everything that needs to be. 

There are also some concerns about whether it precludes State 

authority based on whether such facilities end up being defined as 

interstate or intra because if they are defined as interstate, the 

States could be precluded from going above and beyond what the 

Feds—— 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you. 

And my last question would be Mr. Sherman’s bill included a 

State non-preemption clause so that States have the option of implementing standards more stringent than the Federal ones. 

Do you feel that States like California should have the option of 

requiring measures like shutoff valves, pressure monitors, testing 

of downhill devices if the Federal regulations fail to do so? 

Mr. WEIMER. Absolutely. 

Ms. HAHN. OK. Thank you very much. 

And, Mr. Chairman, thank you for indulging me for my personal 

second round. 

Mr. ROKITA. I appreciate the gentlewoman’s questions. 

Thank you all for your testimony. I say that for the committee 

members and on behalf of Chairman Denham. Your comments 

have been very helpful for today’s educational hearing. 

And seeing no further questions, I would ask unanimous consent 

that the record of today’s hearing remain open until such time as 

our witnesses have provided answers to any questions that may be 

submitted to them in writing, and unanimous consent that the 

record remain open for 15 days for any additional comments and 

information submitted by Members or witnesses to be included in 

the record of today’s hearing. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

I would like to thank our witnesses again for their testimony 

today. If no other Members have anything to add, this subcommittee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

38 


Insert offset folio 22 here 98874.022
39 


Insert offset folio 23 here 98874.023
40 


Insert offset folio 24 here 98874.024
41 


Insert offset folio 25 here 98874.025
42 


Insert offset folio 26 here 98874.026
43 


Insert offset folio 27 here 98874.027
44 


Insert offset folio 28 here 98874.028
45 


Insert offset folio 29 here 98874.029
46 


Insert offset folio 30 here 98874.030
47 


Insert offset folio 31 here 98874.031
48 


Insert offset folio 32 here 98874.032
49 


Insert offset folio 33 here 98874.033
50 


Insert offset folio 34 here 98874.034
51 


Insert offset folio 35 here 98874.035
52 


Insert offset folio 36 here 98874.036
53 


Insert offset folio 37 here 98874.037
54 


Insert offset folio 38 here 98874.038
55 


Insert offset folio 39 here 98874.039
56 


Insert offset folio 40 here 98874.040
57 


Insert offset folio 41 here 98874.041
58 


Insert offset folio 42 here 98874.042
59 


Insert offset folio 43 here 98874.043
60 


Insert offset folio 44 here 98874.044
61 


Insert offset folio 45 here 98874.045
62 


Insert offset folio 46 here 98874.046
63 


Insert offset folio 47 here 98874.047
64 


Insert offset folio 48 here 98874.048
65 


Insert offset folio 49 here 98874.049
66 


Insert offset folio 50 here 98874.050
67 


Insert offset folio 51 here 98874.051
68 


Insert offset folio 52 here 98874.052
69 


Insert offset folio 53 here 98874.053
70 


Insert offset folio 54 here 98874.054
71 


Insert offset folio 55 here 98874.055
72 


Insert offset folio 56 here 98874.056
73 


Insert offset folio 57 here 98874.057
74 


Insert offset folio 58 here 98874.058
75 


Insert offset folio 59 here 98874.059
76 


Insert offset folio 60 here 98874.060
77 


Insert offset folio 61 here 98874.061
78 


Insert offset folio 62 here 98874.062
79 


Insert offset folio 63 here 98874.063
80 


Insert offset folio 64 here 98874.064
81 


Insert offset folio 65 here 98874.065
82 


Insert offset folio 66 here 98874.066
83 


Insert offset folio 67 here 98874.067
84 


Insert offset folio 68 here 98874.068
85 


Insert offset folio 69 here 98874.069
86 


Insert offset folio 70 here 98874.070
87 


Insert offset folio 71 here 98874.071
88 


Insert offset folio 72 here 98874.072
89 


Insert offset folio 73 here 98874.073
90 


Insert offset folio 74 here 98874.074
91 


Insert offset folio 75 here 98874.075
92 


Insert offset folio 76 here 98874.076
93 


Insert offset folio 77 here 98874.077
94 


Insert offset folio 78 here 98874.078
95 


Insert offset folio 79 here 98874.079
96 


Insert offset folio 80 here 98874.080
97 


Insert offset folio 81 here 98874.081
98 


Insert offset folio 82 here 98874.082
99 


Insert offset folio 83 here 98874.083
100 


Insert offset folio 84 here 98874.084
101 


Insert offset folio 85 here 98874.085
102 


Insert offset folio 86 here 98874.086
103 


Insert offset folio 87 here 98874.087
104 


Insert offset folio 88 here 98874.088
105 


Insert offset folio 89 here 98874.089
106 


Insert offset folio 90 here 98874.090
107 


Insert offset folio 91 here 98874.091
108 


Insert offset folio 92 here 98874.092
109 


Insert offset folio 93 here 98874.093
110 


Insert offset folio 94 here 98874.094
111 


Insert offset folio 95 here 98874.095
112 


Insert offset folio 96 here 98874.096
113 


Insert offset folio 97 here 98874.097
114 


Insert offset folio 98 here 98874.098
115 


Insert offset folio 99 here 98874.099
116 


Insert offset folio 100 here 98874.100
117 


Insert offset folio 101 here 98874.101
118 


Insert offset folio 102 here 98874.102
119 


Insert offset folio 103 here 98874.103
120 


Insert offset folio 104 here 98874.104
121 


Insert offset folio 105 here 98874.105
122 


Insert offset folio 106 here 98874.106
123 


Insert offset folio 107 here 98874.107
124 


Insert offset folio 108 here 98874.108
125 


Insert offset folio 109 here 98874.109
126 


Insert offset folio 110 here 98874.110
127 


Insert offset folio 111 here 98874.111
128 


Insert offset folio 112 here 98874.112
129 


Insert offset folio 113 here 98874.113
130 


Insert offset folio 114 here 98874.114
131 


Insert offset folio 115 here 98874.115
132 


Insert offset folio 116 here 98874.116
133 


Insert offset folio 117 here 98874.117
134 


Insert offset folio 118 here 98874.118
135 


Insert offset folio 119 here 98874.119
136 


Insert offset folio 120 here 98874.120
137 


Insert offset folio 121 here 98874.121
138 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 122 here 98874.122