U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

87–962 PDF 2014

A REVIEW OF THE PIPELINE SAFETY, 

REGULATORY CERTAINTY, AND 

JOB CREATION ACT OF 2011 

(113–70) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 20, 2014 

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 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, 

Vice Chair 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

DUNCAN HUNTER, California 

ERIC A. ‘‘RICK’’ CRAWFORD, Arkansas 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

TOM RICE, South Carolina 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois 

MARK SANFORD, South Carolina 

DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

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 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

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 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BOB GIBBS, Ohio 

PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD L. HANNA, New York, Vice Chair 

DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida 

THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky 

ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex Officio) 

VACANCY 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JANICE HAHN, California 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia 

(Ex Officio) 

(III) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... iv 

TESTIMONY 

Hon. Cynthia L. Quarterman, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration ................................................................................. 2 

Donald F. Santa, president and chief executive officer, Interstate Natural 

Gas Association of America ................................................................................. 2 

Craig O. Pierson, president, Marathon Pipe Line LLC, on behalf of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines ...................................................................................... 2 

Ronald A. Bradley, vice president, gas operations, PECO, an Exelon Company, on behalf of the American Gas Association ............................................. 2 

Carl Weimer, executive director, Pipeline Safety Trust ....................................... 2 

PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBER OF CONGRESS 

Hon. Elizabeth H. Esty, of Connecticut ................................................................. 31 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Hon. Cynthia L. Quarterman ................................................................................. 32 

Donald F. Santa ....................................................................................................... 50 

Craig O. Pierson ...................................................................................................... 55 

Ronald A. Bradley .................................................................................................... 68 

Carl Weimer ............................................................................................................. 83 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. Cynthia L. Quarterman, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, response to request for information from Hon. 

Corrine Brown, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ....... 27 

Carl Weimer, executive director, Pipeline Safety Trust, responses to questions 

for the record from Hon. Corrine Brown, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Florida ..................................................................................... 100 

iv 


Insert offset folio 1 here 87962.001
v 


Insert offset folio 2 here 87962.002
vi 


Insert offset folio 3 here 87962.003
vii 


Insert offset folio 4 here 87962.004
viii 


Insert offset folio 5 here 87962.005
(1) 

A REVIEW OF THE PIPELINE SAFETY, 

REGULATORY CERTAINTY, AND 

JOB CREATION ACT OF 2011 

TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2014 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:12 p.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 afternoon. Welcome to the Subcommittee on Railroads, 

Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials. 

Our hearing today will focus on the implementation of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011. 

This act is administered by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, PHMSA, and it expires at the end of 2015. 

The United States has the largest network of energy pipelines of 

any nation in the world, and pipelines are energy lifelines that 

power nearly all of our daily activities. Pipelines are the safest and 

most cost-effective means to transport the extraordinary volumes of 

natural gas and hazardous liquid products that fuel our economy. 

Since 1986, the volume of energy products transported through 

pipelines has increased by one-third, yet the number of reportable 

incidents has decreased by 28 percent. 

Pipeline safety is carried out in a partnership between PHMSA, 

State regulators and the private sector. Both Government and industry have taken numerous steps to improve pipeline safety over 

the last 10 years. 

While the data shows that Federal pipeline safety programs have 

been on the right track, Congress enacted the 2011 pipeline safety 

bill to strengthen our efforts, as stakeholders understood there was 

room for improvement. 

The law included 42 congressional mandates of PHMSA, of which 

21 are complete, 13 are on schedule and in progress, and 8 have 

been extended beyond their deadline. 

As of April 23rd, 2014, PHMSA had issued 10 advisory bulletins, 

completed 5 reports, updated 2 parts of the Code of Federal Regulations and issued 1 final rule. We look forward to hearing from 

our witnesses today on those mandates and PHMSA’s progress at 

implementing the 2011 law. 

2 

We believe in a risk-based, data-driven approach to pipeline safety that focuses private investment in pipeline safety on those areas 

of higher risk. 

As PHMSA develops rules to implement the mandates contained 

in the 2011 act, it is critically important that we must provide regulatory certainty necessary for pipeline owners and operators to 

plan infrastructure investments and do so with input from the safety community and industry. 

Doing so means maintaining a risk-based approach that applies 

cost-benefit principles to the development of rules and regulations. 

It also means doing the due diligence to ensure rules do not go beyond congressional intent, thereby creating uncertainty for the regulated community which ultimately does not enhance safety. 

We will hear today that industry is also being proactive in its 

own safety initiatives to ensure best practices exist for things like 

inspections, detecting leaks and safety training. 

We will indeed hear from folks on both the hazardous liquids and 

the natural gas sides of the community that developing a culture 

of safety is important to these industries and the communities at 

large. I am looking forward to hearing about these initiatives. 

In closing, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses regarding these issues concerning pipeline safety. Shortly we will hear 

from the ranking member, Corrine Brown, for 5 minutes for any 

opening statement she may have. 

Again I would like to thank our witnesses. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. CYNTHIA L. QUARTERMAN, ADMINISTRATOR, PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY 

ADMINISTRATION; DONALD F. SANTA, PRESIDENT AND 

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; CRAIG O. PIERSON, PRESIDENT, 

MARATHON PIPE LINE LLC, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF OIL PIPE LINES; RONALD A. BRADLEY, VICE PRESIDENT, GAS OPERATIONS, PECO, AN EXELON COMPANY, ON 

BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION; AND CARL 

WEIMER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PIPELINE SAFETY TRUST 

Mr. DENHAM. And we will proceed with the Honorable Ms. 

Quarterman this afternoon. 

Thank you for joining us. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Good afternoon, Chairman Denham, Ranking 

Member Brown and members of the subcommittee. 

Thank you for your leadership on pipeline safety issues, and 

thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s oversight of 

America’s vast network of energy pipelines and the progress we 

have made in implementing the mandates of the Pipeline Safety, 

Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011. 

Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge former Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar and 

pass along my condolences to his family and his former colleagues. 

I know many of you worked with him, knew him and were friends 

with him. Former Chairman Oberstar was incredibly smart and 

dedicated to making America’s transportation network the best and 

the safest in the world, and he will be greatly missed. 

3 

PHMSA is a little agency with a big mission. Over 2.6 million 

miles of pipeline cross our Nation. These pipelines are a way to 

transport hazardous products that are essential to our way of life, 

our mobility and our Nation’s economic well-being. 

Now more than ever Americans are relying on pipelines for energy transportation and they are expecting the companies who operate those pipelines to do so safely. Safety is the top priority of 

Secretary Foxx, myself and all of the employees at PHMSA. 

Prior to 2010, the Nation’s pipeline safety record was improving 

significantly. We implemented all but one of the mandates of the 

2006 PIPES Act and closed almost all then-pending NTSB recommendations. 

In 2010 and 2011, a string of significant pipeline incidents 

brought an intense focus to pipeline safety. PHMSA received 42 

congressional mandates through the Pipeline Safety Act, 27 NTSB 

recommendations, 16 OIG and 6 GAO recommendations following 

those incidents. 

We have taken a comprehensive approach to addressing these 

mandates and recommendations. In doing so, we are refining our 

policies and procedures, issuing advisory bulletins, reminding 

stakeholders of our expectations and their responsibilities, developing performance measures to drive safety, and strengthening our 

regulatory framework with the development of new regulations. 

As of right now, as the chairman mentioned, PHMSA has completed 50 percent of the statutory mandates and made significant 

progress towards the remaining mandates with the intent of completing them all. 

Our hard work is driving the industry to operate pipelines more 

safely, and I would like to highlight a few of our recent successes. 

We increased our penalty authority and for the first time can enforce oil spill preparedness regulations. We drafted proposed rules 

that will comprehensively update natural gas and hazardous liquid 

transmission pipeline transportation, including our integrity management requirements. 

Implementation of several key pipeline safety mandates and 

NTSB recommendations are contained in those rules. Also included 

is a comprehensive integrity verification process to satisfy multiple 

mandates from the Congress and recommendations that came from 

the tragic incident in San Bruno, California. 

Serious incidents, ones involving death or injury, continue their 

downward trend and reached a low of 25 in 2013. That is the lowest amount in 30 years. Further, fatalities were driven to a 5-year 

low and injuries reached a 7-year low in 2013. 

We have reduced the time it takes to close an enforcement case 

by 65 percent since 2009, and we issued record proposed fines in 

2013. 

We continue to engage the States and the Department’s Call to 

Action for modernizing high-risk pipeline infrastructure, and many 

of our research and development efforts are addressing the complex 

challenges posed by aging pipeline infrastructure. 

We also focused our inspection program to better utilize data and 

revise protocols to target the greatest risks for individual operators, 

whether they be compliance issues or integrity issues. 

4 

Our new state-of-the-art training qualifications center will ensure we are providing and supporting our State and Federal inspectors and preparing them for successful inspections. 

While the Nation’s infrastructure needs and the landscape surrounding energy products have changed dramatically since the 

Pipeline Safety Act was enacted, our focus on safety and the need 

for effective standards and recommendations remains the same. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today, and I look 

forward to your questions. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Ms. Quarterman. 

Don Santa, president and CEO, Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, you may proceed. 

Mr. SANTA. Thank you, Chairman Denham. 

Good afternoon, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Brown, 

members of the subcommittee. 

My name is Donald Santa, and I am the 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 26 member companies are analogous to the Interstate Highway System, transporting 

natural gas across State and regional boundaries. 

In the wake of the natural gas pipeline accident in San Bruno, 

INGAA’s board of directors committed the association and its member pipeline 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, a pursuit of excellence. 

INGAA’s overarching goal of zero incidents is supported by four 

core principles. These are, one, a commitment to a safety culture 

as a critical dimension of continuous improvement; two, a relentless pursuit of improving by learning; three, a commitment to apply 

integrity management principles on a systemwide basis; and, four, 

a commitment to engage with stakeholders at all levels. Together, 

these principles came to be known as the INGAA integrity management continuous improvement, or IMCI, initiative. 

INGAA supported the most recent reauthorization of the Pipeline 

Safety Act in 2011 as part of its commitment to improve pipeline 

safety. We also support implementation of the new law through 

regulations. 

While progress towards INGAA’s goal of zero incidents must continue whether new regulations are issued or not, it is important 

and desirable that there be consistency between the voluntary commitments in the INGAA action plan and the regulations that will 

implement the 2011 act. 

INGAA has engaged in active dialogue with PHMSA and other 

stakeholders over the past 3 years to achieve this goal. This has 

been constructive, and we have every reason to believe that the 

omnibus rule proposed by PHMSA later this year will reflect 

INGAA’s input. Still, these proposed regulations are behind the 

schedule that Congress prescribed in the 2011 act. 

INGAA acknowledges that regulations should be thoughtfully 

considered and include an analysis of cost and benefits. The practical consequence of this delay, however, is to erode the confidence 

of some pipeline companies that proceeding with the dedication of 

5 

resources needed to implement pipeline safety commitments will be 

consistent with the final rules adopted by PHMSA. 

This hesitancy is rooted in the perceived risk that the rules ultimately might compel repeating steps in the pipeline safety action 

plan. This is not insignificant. 

For example, testing pipelines for material strength is both costly 

and disruptive because pipelines need to be removed from operation to complete the testing. 

This do-over risk creates a financial risk for pipeline operators 

and their customers as well as the risk of more extensive operational disruptions than would be needed. This do-over risk should 

not be permitted to hold us back when we, as an industry, and our 

regulators should be moving forward. 

Our purpose here is to work collaboratively with PHMSA. Because the regulatory process indeed goes far beyond what PHMSA 

can control, INGAA wishes to make the point that it is critical that 

these natural gas pipeline safety regulations be completed in a 

workable and timely manner. 

It is worth recalling that the title of the most recent law reauthorizing the Pipeline Safety Act makes the point. It is the Pipeline 

Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011. Regulatory certainty is necessary to move forward. INGAA pledges to 

play a constructive role in completing these efforts. 

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

to answer any questions that the subcommittee might have. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Santa. 

The next witness is Craig Pierson, president, Marathon Pipe 

Line LLC, on behalf of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines. 

Mr. Pierson, you may proceed. 

Mr. PIERSON. Good afternoon. 

I am Craig Pierson, president of Marathon Pipe Line LLC. 

Marathon Pipe Line, headquartered in Findlay, Ohio, operates 

approximately 6,000 miles of pipeline in 14 States, mainly from 

Texas and Louisiana to and throughout the Midwest. 

Marathon transports crude oil and petroleum products to and 

from terminals, refineries and other pipelines. The company safely 

delivers by pipeline an average of 120 million gallons of crude oil 

and petroleum products daily. 

Today I am here in my capacity as vice chairman of American 

Petroleum Institute’s Pipeline Subcommittee, speaking on behalf of 

the pipeline members of API and the Association of Oil Pipe Lines. 

I am also a member of the joint API and AOPL Pipeline Safety 

Excellence Steering Committee, comprised of liquid pipeline executives who help lead industry to improved pipeline safety. 

AOPL and API Pipeline members are engaged in numerous industrywide pipeline safety efforts, which I will discuss in a moment. And I have been pleased to serve on PHMSA’s technical advisory committee for about 7 years. 

Liquid pipeline infrastructure across the United States benefits 

American consumers and workers. In 2012, liquid pipelines transported 14.1 billion barrels of crude oil refined products and natural 

gas liquids across more than 185,000 miles of pipeline. 

While pipelines provide good jobs to those who build and operate 

this critical infrastructure, all Americans benefit from liquid pipeVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:16 Dec 17, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\RR\5-20-1~1\87962.TXT JEAN
6 

lines to heat their homes, to fuel their vehicles, harvest their crops 

or power jobs with the energy and raw materials needed to manufacture most consumer goods. 

Pipelines are safe, reliable and cost-effective for transporting energy liquids. In 2012, more than 99.999 percent of crude oil petroleum products and natural gas liquids transported by pipelines 

reached their destination safely. 

The safety records of pipelines is an understandable outcome of 

the major financial investments that pipeline operators make in 

pipeline safety each year. In 2012, pipeline operators spent more than $1.6 billion evaluating, inspecting and maintaining the integrity of their pipeline 

systems. 

Efforts like those have been underway for more than a decade. 

The result is that, over the last 10 years, the number of liquid 

pipeline incidents were reduced by over 60 percent and the volumes 

released by over 45 percent. 

While pipelines are a safe mode of energy transportation, liquid 

pipeline operators remain focused on continuous improvement with 

the ultimate goal of zero incidents. 

Earlier this year pipeline members of AOPL and API launched 

the Pipeline Safety Excellence initiative. This effort reflects the 

shared values and commitment of our members to work together 

to build and safely operate pipelines. 

The Pipeline Safety Excellence initiative is driven by the shared 

principle of zero incidents, continuous improvement and learning 

from other operators’ experiences. The goal of zero is rooted in the 

belief that, if we pursue perfection, we can achieve excellence. 

Through the continuous industrywide pipeline safety efforts of 

numerous API and AOPL safety workgroups, we decide on our priorities, we pool our resources, we share our learnings so that other 

incidents do not recur. Collaboration, cooperation and sharing is occurring on a daily basis as we drive on our goal to zero. 

Pipeline operators have also begun the annual pipeline performance reporting to the public. We have also implemented an annual 

pipeline strategic planning process which is designed to make sure 

that we are today working on tomorrow’s priorities. 

This process has resulted in the following industry standards or 

guidelines: first, a recommended practice to manage, analyze and 

respond to cracks; second, a guideline to integrate data from all 

threats; third, a recommended practice for leak detection; fourth, a 

recommended practice for emergency response; and perhaps most 

importantly, a recommended practice for pipeline safety management systems. 

We are also accelerating research and development for improving 

in-line inspection technology. We are promoting safety culture 

through industrywide sharings of learnings. And we are also improving training and communication with our emergency responders. 

I look forward to discussing these industrywide safety improvement efforts today and, going forward, we welcome the opportunity 

to work with this committee, PHMSA and other interested parties 

on reauthorization of the pipeline safety bill. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Pierson. 

7 

Mr. Ron Bradley, vice president, gas operations for PECO Energy, on behalf of the American Gas Association. 

You may proceed. 

Mr. BRADLEY. Good afternoon, Chairman Denham, Ranking 

Member Brown and members of the committee. 

My name is Ron Bradley, and I serve as vice president of gas operations at PECO, which provides natural gas distribution service 

to 500,000 natural gas customers in southeastern Pennsylvania. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today to discuss the natural gas distribution industry with particular focus on the high priority that the industry places on safety. 

At PECO, we have six core values: safety, integrity, diversity, respect, accountability and continuous improvement. Safety is our 

first and foremost of these. My commitment and the commitment 

of our leadership at PECO and our parent company, Exelon, is that 

everyone goes home safe. This includes not only our employees, 

but, also, our customers, our contractors and everyone in the communities we serve. PECO’s safety performance is ranked as one of 

the best in the Nation, and we are proud to have been recognized 

by national and State organizations for this. 

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

AGA, which represents more than 200 local distribution companies, 

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

AGA’s member companies operate 2.4 million miles of underground 

pipelines, safely delivering clean, affordable natural gas to residential, commercial and industrial customers. New technologies are 

tapping into new domestic energy reserves, and natural gas is increasingly becoming the fuel of choice for American 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. 

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 standards. 

Additionally, our companies are in close contact with State pipeline safety inspectors working in a collaborative manner that provides for 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 these commitments. 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 that share best practices and lessons learned throughout the industry. 

Each year LDCs spend approximately $19 million on safety, half 

of that on voluntary activities. The Pipeline Inspection, Protection, 

8 

Enforcement and Safety Act of 2006 and the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 both outline several 

programs that help continue to improve the safety of the industry. 

AGA member companies have implemented aspects of these programs either through DOT regulations or voluntarily. Many of 

these programs are in their infancy in terms of implementation, 

and we encourage Congress to allow these programs to develop and 

to mature. Good progress is being made toward implementation of 

the 2011 law, and AGA member companies ask you to stay the 

course. 

Layering new laws and regulations on to companies before existing regulations have been finalized and given a reasonable amount 

of time to work is likely to create uncertainty that undermines our 

shared safety goals. Work completed to date by PHMSA, the industry, NARUC and State regulators and State legislators has combined to produce significant improvement over the last several 

years. We should build on that record. 

In terms of specific issues, the Call Before You Dig Damage Prevention Program, or 811, has been a great success. The PIPES Act 

also required the establishment of distribution integrity management programs. Rules were finalized in February 2010, and the industry commends the DOT on the effective manner in which the 

DIMP rules advance safety while taking into consideration wide 

differences among gas operators. 

The industry applauds DOT’s work with public and emergency 

responders and is eager to work to develop metrics to assess the 

effectiveness of these programs. 

The industry is experiencing significant uncertainty regarding 

PHMSA’s implementation of maximum allowable operating pressure and the integrity verification programs. 

We are prepared to act, but regulatory certainty provided by implementation of regulations would be beneficial to the industry and 

customers alike. 

Finally, with regard to the replacement of cast iron mains, the 

quantity of these mains continues to steadily decline, now making 

up less than 3 percent of total mileage. There is 33,619 miles of 

cast iron mains still in use, and the industry estimates that it will 

cost nearly $83 billion to complete this replacement. Gas utilities 

are working with our legislators and regulators to accelerate this 

process, and the 38 States that have adopted innovative rate mechanisms are providing an important tool to support this. 

At PECO, we spend $20 million annually on our accelerated gas 

infrastructure maintenance program and $34 million on pipeline 

replacement overall. 

In addition to what I have highlighted today, my written testimony provides updates on the industry’s efforts with regard to incident notification, data collection and information sharing and research and development. 

I am pleased to answer questions on these topics or any other 

topics you may have. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Bradley. 

Carl Weimer, executive director, Pipeline Safety Trust. 

Mr. Weimer, you may proceed. 

9 

Mr. WEIMER. Good afternoon, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Brown and members of the subcommittee. 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 15 years ago next month. While prosecuting 

that incident, the U.S. Justice Department was so aghast at the 

way the pipeline company had operated and maintained their pipeline and at the lack of oversight from Federal regulators that they 

asked the Federal courts to set aside money from the settlement 

of that case to create the Pipeline Safety Trust as a watchdog organization over both the industry and the regulators. We have been 

trying to fulfill that vision ever since. 

Reviewing the implementation of the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory 

Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 is somewhat difficult because so many of the required reports and changes to the regulations have yet to be produced. 

The slowness of the reporting and rulemaking process seems at 

odds with the public proclamations of concern and action from the 

administration. While many are frustrated by the slow progress, it 

is difficult to know exactly where to lay the blame. 

PHMSA is certainly partially to blame, since they have been slow 

to produce the required reports and regulations, but they have also 

been clear with Congress for a number of years now that they lack 

the resources needed to complete their mission in a timely manner. 

We also have noted that many times regulation in the reports 

gets significantly delayed by the Secretary’s office itself or by the 

White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. It would 

appear there is plenty of blame to be shared for the slowness in 

implementing many important pipeline safety initiatives. 

Even with this slowness and delay, over the past few years, 

progress has been made, as evidenced by the reduction in the number of incidents that involve injuries or death to all-time low levels. 

The pipeline industry, regulators, the public interest groups, 

have come together with a publicly stated common goal of zero incidents, a goal that will continually drive all involved to do even better. 

So while today I may criticize the implementation of some sections of the 2011 act, none of us should lose sight of the progress 

that has been made over the past few years. 

PHMSA has in play a number of significant rulemakings that 

may very well address many of the key issues they were told to address in the 2011 act and are also concerns raised in NTSB recommendations, things like expansion of integrity management, 

leak detection, automated shutoff valves, gas-gathering lines, excess flow valves, depth of burial in stream crossings and 

verification of operating pressures. 

We say these issues may be addressed because at this point we 

really don’t know. While PHMSA has started the rulemaking process for many of these issues, for most of these items, no actual rule 

or proposed rule has been produced. Some of these efforts started 

well over 3 years ago, and the exact nature of the holdup is unclear. 

We ask that you request specific information from PHMSA, the 

Secretary’s office and the White House Office of Information and 

10 

Regulatory Affairs to determine where the holdup lies and what is 

being done to correct it. 

Concerned citizens and the pipeline industry alike are in a state 

of limbo regarding these regulatory issues because of the length of 

these delays. 

Congress also asked for nonrulemaking studies and actions in 

the 2011 act which are yet to be accomplished. The areas we are 

most concerned with include the availability of facility response 

plans, maps of high-consequence areas, a study of the transport of 

diluted bitumen, a report on excavation damage and a report on 

gathering lines. 

The gathering line issue is of particular importance to us, since 

we see thousands of new miles of gathering lines going into the 

ground each year with the majority of them being completely unregulated. 

With the large increase of new pipeline infrastructure in some 

parts of the country, the aging infrastructure in need of replacement in other areas and the increased complexity of risk-based regulations, we believe a significant increase in personnel to ensure 

the safety of the Nation’s pipelines are justified. 

PHMSA’s 2013 budget requested funding for an additional 150 

positions it said were needed to carry out its pipeline safety mission. 

PHMSA requested an additional $20.8 million to help provide additional funding to State programs where the majority of the pipeline safety inspectors are employed. We believe such increases in 

resources are needed and hope you will support them. 

In conclusion, as we move closer to the next reauthorization of 

the National Pipeline Safety Program, we would support a straight 

reauthorization of the current program with additional funding in 

the near term to allow PHMSA the time to finally produce all the 

rules and reports previously requested and address the long list of 

recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board. 

Thank you again for inviting us to testify today, and I would be 

glad to answer any questions. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Weimer. 

I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses’ full statements be 

included in the record. Without objection, so ordered. 

At this time I would like to recognize Ranking Member Corrine 

Brown for any opening statement she might have. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I think I am just going to go right to the questions. 

Ms. Quarterman, at the last meeting, I asked a question during 

the HAZMAT hearing, but did not get a good response from DOT. 

So I ask again: What inspections and enforced resources do you 

need for hazardous and separate pipelines? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. For hazardous materials or for pipelines or for 

both? 

Ms. BROWN. Separate. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. OK. Separate. 

The President’s budget for 2015 adds additional resources for the 

pipeline safety program, which includes an additional 60 FTE. 

For the hazardous material program, we have an additional three FTE, but there is also a separate line item, which is a $40 

11 

million fund to fund energy projects. It includes all agencies within 

the department that address transportation of crude oil. 

Ms. BROWN. Many groups have voiced concern about the length 

of time it takes for DOT to finalize two major rulemakings. One is 

for liquid pipelines, and one is for the gas pipelines. 

What is the status of the rulemaking? And why have there been 

so many delays? 

And Mr. Bradley and Mr. Pierson may want to answer that, and 

Mr. Weimer too. But I want to start with you, Ms. Quarterman. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. These are very complicated and complex 

rulemakings. As you know, when we put out an advance notice of 

proposed rulemaking with respect to hazardous liquids and we put 

out a separate one with respect to gas transmission and gas gathering, they were basically across the board, asking about everything that deals with those items. 

I am happy to report that we have a draft of both of those rules, 

one of which is at the office of the OMB for review. The gas transmission rule is in circulation for comment and, hopefully, we will 

be able to move that forward very quickly as well. 

Ms. BROWN. We have heard a number of concerns about the condition of two pipelines under the Great Lakes called Line 5. These 

pipelines are nearly 60 years old. 

What does DOT know about the condition of Line 5? And what 

has DOT done to ensure that they are safe? 

And I would like Mr. Weimer, my person, to comment on that, 

also. 

Ms. Quarterman, you first, though. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. OK. Thank you. 

With respect to Line 5 of the Lakehead System, if you will recall, 

there was a series of incidents associated with Enbridge over the 

past few years and, as a result of those incidents, the Department 

put the first and one-of-a-kind, I think, consent decree with the 

company that included the entire Lakehead pipeline system. 

I have been having meetings twice a month with respect to our 

work on that pipeline system in which we get updates on everything that is happening. It is a comprehensive review of every aspect of that program. We have spent about 300 man-years so far 

overseeing the program. 

With respect to Line 5 in specific, when we first saw in media 

accounts there were concerns with respect to that pipeline, we immediately contacted Enbridge and asked them what were their 

plans, what were they planning to do with that line, and we began 

to look back at past testing information to see what we could learn 

about it. 

So I have responded very recently to a series of congressional inquiries about that. I am happy to share a copy of that response 

with you to give you a sense of all the testing that has been performed on those lines. 

Suffice it to say that the plan that Enbridge has with respect to 

Line 5 is to increase throughput on that line, but it is beneath the 

existing maximum operating pressure of that line. 

Ms. BROWN. Would you like to respond to that? 

Mr. WEIMER. Sure. Thank you for the question. 

12 

Due to the spill of nearly 1 million gallons of crude oil into the 

Kalamazoo River in 2010, there is a heightened awareness of pipeline issues in the Great Lakes States. 

Citizens in that area are particularly concerned with one of the 

lines, Line 5, that goes under the Great Lakes. It is one of the few 

pipelines that goes under a waterway for that distance, crossing at 

the Straits of Mackinac. 

I think the main issue is that the company and PHMSA have not 

been particularly transparent with the people that have been asking the questions about what shape that pipeline is in, how it has 

been tested, what those test results showed. 

We have no information to help elucidate whether that pipeline 

is safe or not, but we hope that the company has that information. 

It would be nice if they would share it with the citizens of Michigan. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

Ms. Quarterman, is PHMSA considering taking a number of the 

pending regulations and putting them into a mega-rule? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. We are not. We have many regulations that 

are pending. We have a rule for gas transmission which covers a 

number of issues, if that is what you are referring to. 

Mr. DENHAM. We have heard that, with the large backlog of 

pending regulations, that the agency was looking at combining a 

number of those rules into a mega-rule. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. No. That is not the case. 

Mr. DENHAM. That is not the case. OK. 

Mr. Santa, what are some of the biggest concerns with PHMSA’s 

rulemaking progress to date with the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act? 

Mr. SANTA. Chairman Denham, as I noted in my testimony, I 

think that our concern really has to do with the risks created by 

moving forward with our voluntary pipeline safety commitments 

and the possibility that, due to delay in the rule, our member pipelines may face some do-over risks. In other words, they do the right 

thing, but the rule then requires them to do more, which would create financial risk and, also, operational interference, which could 

affect both the pipelines and their customers. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Pierson? 

Mr. PIERSON. With regard to the notice of proposed rulemaking 

for hazardous liquids, we support it moving forward. 

We perform integrity management on about twice as many miles 

of pipeline as we need to beyond HCAs, and we think that the new 

rule—although we have not seen it, we think the new rule will recognize that. 

Mr. DENHAM. Mr. Bradley? 

Mr. BRADLEY. Yes. As I mentioned in my testimony, Chairman, 

I believe that there is a risk of uncertainty of regulation. 

The good news is that, at AGA, in 2011, we crafted with the approval of the AGA board the AGA commitment to safety, which had 

us commit to doing a number of activities that were over and above 

the regulations. So that hedged the risk a little, but uncertainty 

still lies out there. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

13 

Ms. Quarterman, the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act required PHMSA 

to conduct a study about the sufficiency of pipeline regulations for 

the transportation of diluted bitumen. The study was completed by 

the National Research Council. 

Can you summaries what the major findings of the report were. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. The report concluded that diluted bitumen 

was not substantially different from any of the other crudes that 

were moving on the pipeline system. 

That report, I think, has been shared with Congress. It came out 

last June, I believe. We are still working on putting a formal letter 

to you, a reporting to you, on the results of that report. But we will 

hopefully get it to you soon. 

Mr. DENHAM. Based on that study, does PHMSA feel that the 

current regulations are sufficient for pipelines transporting the diluted Bitumen? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Well, we have a pending rulemaking that is 

coming forward with respect to a hazardous liquids pipeline. And 

to the extent that we thought there was any need to do anything 

more, it would within the context of that rulemaking. 

In addition, as a part of our 2014 budget, there was a requirement that we do a further study to evaluate whether dilbit spills 

are more risky than spills of other crudes moved in the United 

States. We are in the process of finalizing a contract with the National Academy of Sciences to do that study as well. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you. 

I recognize Mr. Michaud. 

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

Mr. Weimer, since World War II, a pipeline in Maine and 

Vermont and New Hampshire has shipped crude oil north to Canada. Recently, speculation that the pipeline flow will be reversed to 

ship tar sands down from Canada has raised a lot of concern 

among my constituents. 

Center to the concerns is the fact that—around the adequacy of 

spill response plans, the structural integrity of an aging pipeline 

and its ability to hold up the shipping of new material in the opposite direction. 

Many congressional Representatives from the region, including 

myself, have called for a new EIF and Presidential permit before 

such a pipeline operation can move forward. 

My question is: As an independent watchdog of the industry and 

regulator, are there other precautions or requirements you believe 

that would be necessary in order to maintain the pipeline’s current 

safety operation? 

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

I am aware of that pipeline. That pipeline actually has a very 

good safety record up to this point, but I think the concerns of reversing that pipeline and running a different type of crude oil 

through it are justified. 

I think the issues you laid are some of the main ones that need 

to be looked at. I know the State of New Hampshire recently took 

on spill prevention on their own because they were concerned that 

the Federal Government under PHMSA was not doing an adequate 

job of spill prevention, especially for oil sands types of crude where 

14 

they may sink if they get out of the pipeline, which I think is the 

major concern up in that part of the country. 

So I think the things you laid out—looking at the hydraulic 

changes, the different constituency of that pipeline, what that 

might do to particularly stress on the pipeline, an aging pipeline, 

and then spill response if that material should get out—are the key 

things people should be looking at. And the States do have some 

authority on spill response planning. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much. 

This question is for Mr. Bradley, Mr. Pierson and Mr. Santa. 

The current natural gas bottleneck in New England is crippling 

Maine’s manufacturing base because we are at the end of the pipeline. 

Without increased natural gas capacity and getting industrial 

end users connected to the pipeline, Maine will continue to lose 

manufacturing jobs. A recent regional agreement between New 

England Governors is a good start, but more still needs to be done. 

My question is: As representatives of the private sector, what 

more can be done at the Federal, State or local level to increase 

natural gas supplied to Maine? 

We will start with Mr. Santa. 

Mr. SANTA. Thank you for that question, Mr. Michaud. 

We are well aware of the capacity bottlenecks in New England 

and the effect that that is having on the region’s consumers and 

industry. 

INGAA’s members have proposed new pipeline capacity into that 

region. One of those projects is going ahead, the Algonquin Incremental Market Project. Others are in their open seasons. 

We applaud the region’s Governors for their leadership through 

NESCOE in proposing that the cost of additional capacity, especially the capacity to serve electric generators, be defrayed by including those costs in ISO New England’s transmission tariff. 

We also applaud some of the region’s electric distribution companies—National Grid, United Illuminating, Northeast Utilities—for 

stepping up to be the anchor shippers on that pipeline capacity. 

So we are very hopeful that the region has reached a breakthrough and INGAA’s members are very committed to getting more 

pipeline into that market. 

Mr. PIERSON. From the hazardous liquids perspective, we have a 

bit different process to establish a new pipeline. As you know, pipelines connect supply with demand and, as demand changing, supply changes. 

We have got shippers that, when they have a strong need to 

make a move in a particular movement, they will make commitments that enable the capital to expand the pipeline. 

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you for the question. 

As an LDC and the last link in the line, we are downstream of 

New England. One of the things we want to make sure we do is 

to ensure that our customers that are on an interruptible rate do 

interrupt when they should so we don’t pull more gas off the line 

than we should and our customers don’t pull more gas off the line. 

We also want to make sure that our peak day demand is well appropriated and we have contracts in place successively and demand 

contracts in place to move gas along the pipe. 

15 

Mr. MICHAUD. Great. Thank you again. 

Administrator Quarterman, I want to thank you for your testimony today. And I recognize that your agency is still working to 

develop the new regulations required by the 2011 act. 

And I would like to urge you to promulgate those rules as quickly 

as possible so that the private sector has the certainty that it needs 

to invest and expand capacity, you know, in regions like the State 

of Maine. 

So I want to thank all the panelists once again for your testimony this afternoon. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Michaud. 

Mr. Meehan. 

Mr. MEEHAN. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank the panel for their discussion on this very, very 

issue. 

Mr. Santa, talk to me a little bit about the flow of gas right now 

in the United States. We have had a remarkable opportunity created by the discovery of shale gas, particularly in Pennsylvania and 

other kinds of places, my colleague from Maine discussing simultaneously. 

And I know upstate New York and others went through a very 

difficult winter in which we had the recognition that we have got 

trapped gas assets in the ground, but an inability to get them to 

the market as quickly as we would like to. 

Obviously, I think we have implications globally to the extent we 

are able to. And my own observation sort of indicates that some of 

this is dictated by the inability to have the transmission lines for 

the gas sufficient to be able to move it. 

What is your observations on that? What are the opportunities 

here? And what are the impediments to being able to more quickly 

access this shale gas? 

Mr. SANTA. Thank you for the question, Mr. Meehan. 

You are right. The changes that we have seen have been nothing 

short of revolutionary in terms of domestic natural gas production 

and, also, oil production due to the shale resources. 

This also has had a significant effect upon pipelines because in 

many cases, this gas is located in places where gas historically was 

not produced. And so we are seeing changes in flows on the pipelines and some dislocations caused by that. 

The good part is that the industry and the market are responding. When you see those capacity constraints that are signaled by 

the high prices we saw, for example, this past winter with the 

polar vortex, it sends a very powerful price signal that new capacity is needed and creates the incentive for shippers to step up and 

pay for that pipeline capacity. 

So I do believe overall that the market is going to solve this situation. And you are right. With the Marcellus shale, there is a remarkable amount of supply sitting literally on the doorstep of New 

England but for the pipeline capacity to get it there. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Is there an impediment to being able to get it there 

or is it simply a market-based situation? 

Mr. SANTA. There are a couple of things that could be done that 

I think could help expedite the situation. The Federal Energy RegVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:16 Dec 17, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\HEARINGS\113\RR\5-20-1~1\87962.TXT JEAN
16 

ulatory Commission overall does a good job with pipeline siting. 

However, often a lot of the other permits that are needed get delayed. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Local permits or Federal permits? 

Mr. SANTA. Primarily, Federal permits, although, in some instances, because authority has been delegated, it is the States. The 

House passed H.R. 1900 last year, which was a bill that was intended to assist that situation. 

Also, as I discussed with Mr. Michaud, getting the situation in 

New England, aligning the demand created by the electric generation market with somebody who has got the wherewithal and the 

creditworthiness to pay for pipeline capacity is a big part of answering the question there. 

Mr. MEEHAN. I think you also pointed. And I think it is not just 

moving those minerals for the purpose of heat and otherwise, but 

it also could be a real asset with manufacturing and other kinds 

of capacity, that we could complete globally much—you know, and 

this is something—each and every day that goes by is an opportunity we are losing to complete globally. 

Mr. SANTA. It has been a tremendous boon to the U.S. petrochemical industry and other industries. As a matter of fact, some 

of that Marcellus gas and some of the pipes that previously had 

brought gas from the gulf coast and Midcontinent to the Northeast 

are getting reversed to take that gas to the gulf coast to feed those 

petrochemical complexes. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Bradley, you are in the gas business. 

Do you have any thoughts on this? 

Mr. BRADLEY. Once again, as the last guy on the line of using 

natural gas, I tend to think that, as Mr. Santa said, the flow—you 

do see the flow moving. 

You do see the natural gas from the gulf starting to make a reverse, and you do see more flow especially at PECO. We have more 

Marcellus flow into our territories. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Yes. But we are moving gas a long way to go down 

to the gulf to turn it around to bring it back. 

Mr. BRADLEY. Right. 

Mr. MEEHAN. That is what doesn’t make sense to me when we 

have gas sitting right in Pennsylvania, right next to New England, 

New York and everything else. 

Mr. BRADLEY. That is right. 

And, in Pennsylvania, the actual amount of gas that is being produced is switching quickly. We have gone from 90 percent from the 

gulf 4 or 5 years ago and 10 percent Marcellus. Last year we were 

40 percent Marcellus. 

So the market is starting to shift and more Marcellus is flowing 

into Pennsylvania, especially when we have it as a source there. 

So I see the market fundamentals changing quickly, and I think 

over the coming years it will continue to have an impact on the 

area. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Just one closing question. 

Ms. Quarterman, where are we these days on the question of 

the—a lot of the older urban areas? And I represent an older urban 

area we have seen within the cast iron pipe and urban areas. 

17 

Where do we sit with that in terms of how that will be transformed into the modern pipe that would be safer? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. A few years ago the Department, along with 

many of our industry partners, got together for a Call to Action to 

try to replace some of this old high-risk infrastructure like cast iron 

pipe, and we put up on our Web site sort of a report card of where 

we are and where we are going. 

We have been working very hard with AGA and with the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners to say this 

is an opportunity. 

The production—the amount of production of gas means that the 

price is going down. Now is the time to invest in new infrastructure 

and removing the old infrastructure. 

As a result of those efforts, we have now 38 States that have put 

into their format—their regulatory format the ability to have companies recover the costs for that kind of replacement. 

So we are continuing to drive it, but it is not happening fast 

enough. Hopefully, we will see a continued movement to remove 

that pipe. 

Mr. MEEHAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Meehan. 

Mr. Walz? 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you all for being here. I appreciate it. 

Administrator Quarterman, I want to thank you for the kind 

words you had about our colleague and my friend, Jim Oberstar. 

I am very appreciative of that, and I think all of us here certainly 

miss him already. 

For each of you, I appreciate the work you do. I appreciate and 

I think there is a lot of lessons learned in this about continuing to 

move forward. 

I also, like many of my colleagues—we have a wonderful opportunity for American energy. The market is changing fairly dramatically in front of our eyes. I think is it is incumbent upon us to move 

ahead of that or at least with it, if you will. 

And I have just kind of a side note question because there is a 

lot of expertise here. With the safety record and with the things 

that deal with pipelines, one of the things—and, again, the Administrator has been on top of this issue with us. 

In my part of the world, Minnesota, we have now an unprecedented amount of oil moving above the ground on moving pipelines 

and trains from the Bakken oil fields. 

And my question kind of focuses on as we are looking at different 

things out there, dealing with this or whatever, is the spill response plans and the idea of the industry taking on this that 

doesn’t apply on the railroads. 

Maybe, if I could—and I know this is fairly broad, but it would 

help me understand—is a mandatory spill response plan—is it 

helpful? Can it be of use? Is it something that could apply on that 

side of the House as it does on pipelines? 

And I don’t know who wants to take a stab at this. 

Mr. Pierson? 

Mr. PIERSON. Your question speaks to the rail industry; is that 

correct? 

18 

Mr. WALZ. Yes, that is correct. But I think the lessons learned, 

I want to know how you have that, because they don’t have that, 

if I am not mistaken. We talked about that, mandatory spill response. It is not that they don’t have a plan. They do. It is just different from what is asked of you. 

Mr. PIERSON. We do support the mandatory spill response plans, 

and they need to evolve as the commodity we transport evolves. 

And we have currently an improvement initiative underway to develop a recommended practice for operators on how to implement 

their emergency response plans better. So are they essential to our 

industry? Yes, they are. 

Mr. WALZ. Is it a partnership—do you view it that way, it is a 

partnership between you and the regulators and the different people involved with the industry? Because I think there is no doubt 

whatsoever both rail and the pipelines, our interests are the same, 

to move commodities safely and as efficiently as possible. We have 

that same. Is it helpful when you have input in that, or does it feel 

like the mandatory part of it is asking you to conform to that, or 

does it run both ways? I guess my question is trying to get the very 

best response plan for my first responders as well as the experts 

that are moving this material. 

Mr. PIERSON. The response plan is collaborative. We submit response plans. Our regulator has a chance to comment on them, and 

from that perspective, if they have got comments, it is collaborative. 

With regard to first responders, that relationship is one that is 

vital to us, and trying to establish a relationship with first responders throughout the breadth of our operations is very much a challenge. But quite often they will be there first or early, and they are 

an essential component. We are working with them to try to improve the training—improve their training, improve the communication that we have got with them. 

Mr. WALZ. That is the very same issue—that is what I thought, 

the very same issue you are hearing from them. It is the communication piece, the long-term training, the commitment, because it 

is very difficult, especially smaller communities, how you keep 

them trained and how you get them out there. I appreciate that, 

and with that I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, all. 

Mr. DENHAM. Thank you, Mr. Walz. 

Mr. Hanna. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thanks for being here today. I just want to ask a simple question. First of all, Btu gallon-for-gallon, barrel-for-barrel, is there a 

safer way to move product than underground? 

Mr. SANTA. Mr. Hanna, I think the record demonstrates that 

pipelines, and energy pipelines in particular, are the safest mode 

of transportation. 

Mr. HANNA. Right. So something like the Keystone pipeline 

might make sense considering the rail accidents we see. 

There is a theme that I started to go into, but regulatory uncertainty—and I have talked to manufacturers of pipe and manufacturers of new products, liners for things like cast iron, which I 

know you are familiar with, I am familiar with. The lack of regulatory certainty—and I respect the fact that Ms. Quarterman is 

19 

here and you have other constraints—but 8 out of the 42 mandates 

implemented in 2011 are past their deadline, and we have a group 

of people here that uniformly—particularly Mr. Bradley spoke to 

it—find this to be an impediment to the work they are trying to 

do, the progress they are trying to make. In spite of the fact that 

the safety record has improved so much, et cetera, and fines are 

apparently up, I am not sure if that is it a good thing or a bad 

thing, but, you know, it is kind of blaming the victim, too, when 

these people are waiting for rules and regulations, willing to comply, anxious to find out what it is that they need to operate under, 

and yet they are at a loss for that. 

Do you think that you are keeping up with the industry and its 

demands, or would you—I mean, I would just like a response, because you have got four men who are here who generally are upset 

that—I don’t want to put words in anybody’s mouths—but feel constrained by the lack of product by your Department. And I say that 

respectfully. I know you have a lot on your plate. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Well, let me say we did get 42 mandates with 

the new act; however, we got no new dollars. So the fact that we 

have done 50 percent without those additional resources, I think, 

has been great work on our part. 

The things that are far behind, or behind, are not so far behind 

that I think these gentlemen have to worry. When we talk about 

regulatory certainty, one of the things, there was a provision in the 

act that required us to do something within 18 months. We said 

at the time the act came out there is absolutely no way that we 

will be able to get to a final rule in 18 months. And, in fact, during 

that 18-month period, we were only able to get through the information collection to get enough information in order to go forward 

with a further rulemaking, because you need that information in 

order to be able to support the costs associated with the rule. 

So instead of going forward with the rulemaking, we did a notice 

to the public that said this is what we are thinking of doing. This 

is the verification process that we think we will have when we do 

a final rule, and we welcome your comments on this before we 

could get to the step of the making the rule. And we got comments 

on those, and we made adoptions. 

So there is knowledge about where we are headed. It is just not 

in a rulemaking—— 

Mr. HANNA. You are fully aware that you have a number of men 

and companies, big corporations—I live in—I represent the Binghamton area, Marcellus shale, all of that—that are cooperative. 

They are begging for support, begging for help, begging for direction and certainty. And you can go a long way towards that. And 

I don’t hear a single person that isn’t willing to fully cooperate. 

Mr. Bradley? 

Mr. BRADLEY. If I may, as I mentioned in my comments, I think 

PHMSA has been working diligently. The good news is that it is 

not hard to have a conversation with PHMSA. We are doing some 

things, and we look forward and continually look forward to working with them as we close out on this. I don’t want to be overly 

partial. 

Mr. HANNA. Mr. Pierson? 

20 

Mr. PIERSON. I would agree with Mr. Bradley’s comments. One 

of the things that we are working closely with PHMSA on is our 

pipeline safety management system. I made reference to that. And 

it was the recommendation that came from NTSB that came to industry. But we are working quite closely with PHMSA on some industry practice that can move the safety needle. So absent rulemaking, PHMSA is making some progress on moving forward. 

Mr. HANNA. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you, Chairman. 

Mrs. CAPITO [presiding]. Thank you. 

I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from California Ms. 

Hahn. 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you. And I did want to thank Chairman 

Denham for holding this hearing. I was one of those who asked for 

this hearing. I wanted to have it in Los Angeles, but because of 

budget constraints, we are having it here, but I still welcome this. 

I appreciate Administrator Quarterman being here as well as all of 

the witnesses. I appreciate your testimony. 

I represent the Ports of Los Angeles, and part of Long Beach, 

and all the oil and gas pipelines connecting the ports with refineries in the area, and pipeline safety is very, very important to me, 

particularly for the communities surrounding those ports, mostly 

underserved communities, mostly working class, poor communities. 

And if there ever was environmental injustice, it is with those communities. The burdens that they have to bear because of living in 

proximity to our Nation’s economic engines is unfortunate. 

One of the communities, Wilmington, I have represented almost 

15 years, once when I was on the city council in Los Angeles and 

now here in Congress. Wilmington sits on one of the largest oil 

fields in the Nation; has a ton of pipelines running underneath 

residences, schools, near soccer fields. 

Unfortunately in March a so-called idle pipeline burst, causing 

thousands of gallons of crude oil to spill into a residential street, 

which wreaked havoc on this community not just when the spill occurred, but the enormous amount of cleanup that has to take place 

afterwards. Heavy equipment, jackhammering, really huge inconvenience, and that is like at the best saying we are inconvenienced. 

At the worst, people had health issues. A couple of members went 

to the hospital. People were overcome with nausea, headaches. I 

went out on the site myself, and the smell of crude oil absolutely 

made me and my aide sick to our stomachs. 

So I have a big issue. I am proud of Congress for passing this 

act in 2011, and I am proud of PHMSA for doing the best you can 

to actually implement some of these mandates, but I feel like there 

is a couple of loopholes. This law expires in 2015, and if we are 

going to reauthorize it, I hope we look at some of the loopholes that 

I think still exist. 

I appreciate all of you talking about all the work that our pipeline owners and operators are doing, many of them on a voluntary 

basis, and thinking about pipeline safety every single day. The 

problem is I had an incident where the pipeline operator didn’t 

think about pipeline safety every day; in fact, hadn’t thought about 

it for 15 years. 

21 

This company purchased a pipeline from another company and 

assumed it was idle and never inspected it. The State of California, 

the fire marshals obviously never held them accountable. You 

know, what happened was it leaked and caused great injury to this 

community. 

So part of what I have learned—and correct me if I am wrong— 

is that there is really no such thing as an idle pipeline. It is either 

active or abandoned. And if it is active, it has to be inspected, and 

we have some verification of that. If it is abandoned, it has to be 

sealed up and filled with some material. So the fact that they even 

classified this as idle, and the California fire marshals allowed 

them to classify this as idle, brings up a huge issue to me that 

there is some misinterpretation of our Federal regulations. 

So I guess I would ask you, Ms. Quarterman, how do you communicate with States or other regulatory agencies on how Federal 

laws should be interpreted? And what kind of evaluations take 

place within PHMSA to evaluate how our States are following the 

law? This was a huge loophole, really unnecessary, and resulted in 

a tragedy mainly because we have this honor system of how we 

allow operators and owners of pipelines to exist. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. We have partnerships with 53 different Federal and State agencies. Every one, except for Alaska and Hawaii, 

all of the other States have adopted. And what they are required 

to do is take the Federal laws that are in existence and create a 

State law that has at a minimum exactly what are in the Federal 

laws. If they want to add on top of that additional requirements 

based on their State conditions, they may do so. 

Ms. HAHN. But they were interpreting this wrong. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I agree with you on that. I don’t know if the 

California Office of the State Fire Marshal interpreted it wrong; I 

understand the operator interpreted it wrong. Because you are absolutely correct. There are active pipelines, and there are abandoned pipelines. The term ‘‘idle pipeline’’ does not exist in the pipeline safety law. So if you have a pipeline that is active, but idle, 

you still have to meet the requirements of the law. 

Ms. HAHN. This one was not inspected for over 15 years. 

I will take a second round. 

Mrs. CAPITO. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Massie from Kentucky. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Santa and Mr. Pierson or Mr. Bradley, I am an engineer, 

and so I am interested in some of the technical details here. Can 

you describe any of the technologies that your companies or member companies have adopted voluntarily over the years, the new 

technologies that allow you to inspect pipelines? Because just because we don’t see somebody come out and look at the pipeline, I 

think, doesn’t mean it is not being inspected. 

Mr. Pierson, just generally could you describe some of those technologies? 

Mr. PIERSON. I will speak to in-line inspection technologies. 

There are about six different technologies now. It is evolving. It is 

probably moving more towards seven or eight. And if you think 

about a medical issue where you use an X-ray to look for some 

issues, you use an MRI, there are different technologies to look for 

22 

different issues, there are two main technologies. One is ultrasonic, 

and the other is magnetic, and they orient the signals to find certain flaws. 

So there is a lot of work going on. We are accelerating our research and development in the pipeline industry to help find cracks 

in weld seams that we can’t find today. And there is a lot of work 

going on, and it is highly technical work. 

Mr. MASSIE. Probably beyond our ability in Congress to comprehend it. 

So how would you, for instance, monitor corrosion in a pipe without actually going to that location physically? 

Mr. PIERSON. Using in-line technology. There is about three different tools that we would use, depending upon the type of corrosion you are looking for. So there is different types of corrosion 

which need different technologies to find them. 

Mr. MASSIE. All right. Mr. Santa? 

Mr. SANTA. Very much the same as Mr. Pierson said. The improvements in the ILI, or in-line inspection technology, are remarkable. These are also referred to by the term ‘‘smart pig,’’ referring 

to the cylindrical devices that are put into the pipeline, and then 

the ability to attach the diagnostic tools to them. 

A lot of the focus following the 2002 reauthorization and implementation of the first integrity management program for the gas 

transmission pipelines was on corrosion. Now we are expanding to 

develop devices that can be used for other purposes. For example, 

it is hoped that we can develop in-line inspection technology that 

can test the material strength and therefore be applied to a lot of 

the testing that is likely to be required pursuant to the PHMSA’s 

new regulations. If we could do that, it would probably be more effective and also save us from both the cost and disruption of doing 

hydrostatic testing of pipelines. 

Mr. MASSIE. Thank you. 

Mr. Bradley. 

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you, sir, just a few ideas. I know someone 

mentioned earlier cast iron pipe lining. That is another way to extend the life, although predominantly what we are doing in the industry is retiring cast iron and replacing it with more modern materials. We expanded the use of excess flow values on the distribution side so that we can go from single-family units up to multifamily units or small commercial properties. 

And as we put more plastic in the ground in the residential and 

commercial areas, we have gone to newer technologies to make 

sure that we can find it using GIS, tracker systems, marker balls, 

different things that are out there that help us so that we can help 

reduce underground damages as we go forward. 

Mr. MASSIE. So, in the time I have remaining, I want to go from 

the technical side to the people side. How important is it to do public education in communities where the pipelines are located, Mr. 

Pierson? 

Mr. PIERSON. One of the most dangerous failures that we can 

suffer is one caused by third-party damage where someone doesn’t 

call 811. And typically when there is excavation near a pipeline, 

that means that people are nearby, and the pipeline can be perforated, and then you have got a real safety issue. 

23 

So we very, very much support getting the word out on 811. We 

also support the notice of proposed rulemaking that PHMSA is 

working on to improve damage enforcement in the States. The 

States have this authority, and PHMSA is moving them to use the 

authority to make sure people call 811. 

Mr. MASSIE. I just want to say in my neighborhood the pipeline 

is a very good member of the community. It is unseen. But, for instance, every year they show up, and it is not what we would call 

a high-risk community. It is rural. They give a ball cap to everybody that lives anywhere near it and a refrigerator magnet, and 

nobody has any excuses for not knowing to call about digging, before they dig. So it has been a good experience in our community. 

Thank you. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. DeFazio from Oregon. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Madam Administrator, I know it is not the direct subject of today’s hearing, but I would like to turn to railcars yet again. We 

have had a couple of discussions of this issue this year, and there 

is a rumor that a rule has been forwarded from your agency which 

includes both railcar specifications and integrity issues and, secondly, operating issues, which, of course, are not the domain of 

your agency, in which you have no particular expertise. 

First, is there such a rule that combines both; and secondly, if 

you did the combine both, were you in full consultation with the 

FRA on the operational aspects? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I am happy to report that the rumors are 

true, that we have, in fact, completed a draft rulemaking in consultation with FRA. I think I mentioned it the last hearing that we 

were sort of—our folks were sequestered together for a long time, 

and they turned around a rule in a couple of months. That rule 

does include a comprehensive approach to rail safety. It includes— 

I can’t tell you the details of it, but it does address tank car issues 

and operational and safety issues. 

As to jurisdictional oversight, PHMSA is responsible for the 

movement of hazardous materials by all modes, which is not just 

packages, but also all the operational considerations that go with 

those movements as well. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Right, but rail movement is an incredibly complicated issue, and I just want—but in any case, you were in full 

consultation with the FRA, and whatever it is that has been forwarded, they deem to be practicable and they are in agreement 

with? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Absolutely. Joe Szabo and I have been like 

this. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. So where—can you tell me where this rulemaking is now residing and when the public might see it? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. It is in the Office of Management and Budget, 

the OIRA office. They have, pursuant, I think, to an Executive 

order, a 90-day period during which they review the rule. I don’t 

know what day we are on now in that review process. Of course, 

they can take longer or shorter. We are encouraging them to move 

as quickly as possible. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. I don’t want to get in trouble here, but what does 

OMB—other than I know they have to do cost-benefit analyses, but 

24 

what other expertise can they bring to bear if they are sitting 

around—if they are actively considering the rule? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Well, they have many questions about the 

rule, the practical effects, the economic effects. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So they are forwarding questions back to you and 

asking—— 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. We have been meeting on not a daily basis, 

but I would say we have been meeting with them on a weekly basis 

with respect to this rule. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. So at this point if I wanted to express the urgency 

of getting a rule out, I should direct my attention to the OMB? OK. 

Thank you. 

One other question. I have sat on the committee for a number 

of years, and we have been through two reauthorizations since I 

have been here. And one particular concern in a number of incidents was distant capability of shutting off—automated capability 

of shutting off pipelines without having to dispatch someone to the 

site and having the time that elapses. We don’t have a rule there. 

Is this just such a problematic technology, or are we making 

progress on this? Why aren’t we there yet? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. We are making progress on this. It was one 

of the items within the Pipeline Safety Act. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. Uh-huh. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. We did two separate advance notices, one on 

hazardous liquid and one on gas transmission. Included in both of 

those were questions related to both leak detection and automated 

shut-off valves. 

There was a requirement with respect to both of those. We had 

to do an independent study. We have done that study, and we are 

in the process of drafting a rule to address those issues. 

Mr. DEFAZIO. OK. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. My time has about expired. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Williams from Texas. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, and thank all of you for being here 

today. We appreciate it very much. 

First of all, with full disclosure, I am from Texas, and we have— 

pipelines are important to us in Texas. They are important to us 

in my district, which has the Barnett shale and Comanche Peak 

Nuclear Power Plant. And I am a big private-sector guy, and I believe we have got too many Government regulations in our life. 

My first question is to you, Mr. Santa. I was hoping you could 

speak about how important regulatory certainty is for expanded demand in oil and gas needs between now and 2035. 

Mr. SANTA. Thank you for the question, Mr. Williams. 

There is going to be a significant need for new midstream pipeline infrastructure in the United States between now and 2035. As 

a matter of fact, the research arm of the INGAA Foundation recently released an update of its report on this, addressing the natural gas side of the equation. That report indicates the need for 

some 339,000 miles of midstream pipeline between 2014 and 2035. 

Admittedly, the bulk of that is going to be smaller diameter pipe 

primarily in connecting all of this new gas supply. There is also 

going to need to be almost 13 million horsepower of natural gas 

25 

compression added during that period. And the total cost for this 

is going to be approximately $200 billion. 

While the report covers about 20 years, the bulk of this is going 

to be needed over the next 5 to 10 years. The report also covers 

both crude oil and natural gas liquid infrastructure, where there 

also is going to be a significant demand for new midstream pipelines. 

So, yes, regulatory certainty will be important for us to move forward with that, although I would add to what my colleague said 

earlier. We do recognize the actions by Administrator Quarterman 

and her colleagues at PHMSA in terms of outreach with us working on things like the integrity verification process. So we appreciate their efforts. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Another question to you. Are there any roadblocks 

that are keeping you from meeting the needs that you have? And 

can Congress do anything to help you? 

Mr. SANTA. Overall the market works well. This is very much 

market driven. Also, on the interstate natural gas pipeline side, the 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission does a very good job. 

There are some issues associated with the host of permits that 

one must get in addition to a FERC certificate. These are often 

pursuant to other Federal laws and other Federal agencies and 

sometimes delegated to State agencies. Mr. Pompeo’s bill, H.R. 

1900, which was passed by the House late last year, if that were 

to be enacted into law, we think it would be a step in the right direction in terms of giving FERC some effective enforcement authority over those other agencies. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. 

Mr. Weimer, a couple of quick questions for you. What I am 

going to ask you today are focused on the review approval and 

siting of new oil pipelines. And I know this topic is largely a State 

function and may be a little beyond this committee’s jurisdiction. 

I would like to hear what you have to say about these questions. 

First of all, what is the Pipeline Safety Trust’s view on the review, approval, and siting of new oil pipelines? 

Mr. WEIMER. Well, I think to sum it up, it is kind of a mess in 

this country right now, because unlike natural gas pipelines where 

you have a FERC process for interstate natural gas pipelines, there 

is not one place that either the public, local governments, or the 

industry can go to to figure out how to put a liquid pipeline in the 

ground. 

If it crosses an international boundary, you get into the State Department, like we have with Keystone. If it doesn’t do that, then 

it falls on State by State. Some States have siting authorities; some 

don’t. If they don’t, then it falls county to county or municipality 

to municipality. So it is a real patchwork of trying to put a new 

liquid pipeline in the ground. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. So I guess I would ask, does your organization 

support the current law letting States have jurisdiction over siting 

and review of new oil pipelines? 

Mr. WEIMER. Yeah, we certainly do support that. In Washington 

State, where I am from, we have an energy facility siting evaluation committee that works very well for siting of those types of 

things. 

26 

Mr. WILLIAMS. And would you also separate the process of new 

oil pipelines versus interstate natural gas transmission pipelines? 

Mr. WEIMER. Well, I think there needs to be a new process, 

whether it falls under something like FERC for interstate natural 

gas, or whether it falls State by State or some other agency is looking at siting of oil pipelines. We just need a better process than 

what there is now. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Do you believe there are benefits to the FERC approach? 

Mr. WEIMER. I think there are. I think everybody knows upfront 

what they are doing. FERC has worked hard to make it a very upfront program where the public understands the process. That 

doesn’t happen with liquid pipelines at this point. Often people are 

angry because they don’t find out until too late in the process what 

is going on. 

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mrs. CAPITO. The gentleman yields back. 

We have had a request to open up for another quick round of second questions, particularly Ms. Hahn, who requested the hearing. 

I would just like to make a quick comment since I haven’t really 

spoken yet. 

I am from West Virginia, and we had the pipeline explosion that 

went across our interstate there, and then I think it destroyed several properties. By the grace of God, there was nobody in those 

properties or nobody close by. It was a relatively—I don’t want— 

it wasn’t a new pipeline, but it wasn’t exceedingly old either at the 

same time. 

And so going along the vein of Mr. Williams, we have Marcellus 

shale development in our State, and we are having massive pipeline construction, and we welcome it. It is a job creator, no doubt 

about it, and we want that. 

But, you know, I will say the investigation was very thorough in 

terms of what happened in West Virginia, and I hope we take lessons learned there. The shut-off valve was one of the issues that 

came up during the discussion and also the deterioration of the materials that were used at the time. 

So where you think it can’t happen or won’t happen, and this 

was just sort of a random place, it can happen any time at any 

place, I guess, without the great precautions. So I appreciate everything everybody here is doing to try to prevent that from happening anywhere else and to make sure that the lessons that we 

learn from unfortunate incidences like this we can use to perform, 

and be better, and be safer. 

And so with that, I will first go to the ranking member. She had 

one more question, so we will go to her first, and then we will go 

to you, Ms. Hahn. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I did not get a chance to do my opening statement, and I guess 

I do want to say that the Department of Transportation says that 

natural gas—pipelines is—the safest way to transport natural gas 

is through the pipelines. But in 2011 alone pipeline incidents 

caused 14 fatalities. This compared to more than 32,000 on the 

highways, 557 on rail, 485 in aviation, and 106 in transit. With 

that said, the difference between pipelines and other transportation 

27 

modes is that one single pipeline incident can cause all kinds of 

damages to the environment and property. 

We have seen several of these in recent times from the gulf coast 

to Michigan, California, New York, Montana and my home State of 

Florida. Many of these incidents formed the basis for the 2014 act, 

including requiring increased civil penalties, installing automatic 

shut-off valves and leak-defection systems in certain pipelines, inspection and repair requirements, increasing communication between pipeline operators and State and local emergency responders. 

With that said, in 2011, I fought to include a provision in the law 

that required the Secretary to make all document references and 

regulation available to the public free of charge. What is the status 

of this requirement, and has it been fully implemented, Ms. 

Quarterman? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Yes. I am happy to report that the requirement that the documents that have been incorporated by reference, 

we have been able to put—we have reached an agreement with all 

except one of the standards agencies to put those items on the 

Internet for free. Subsequent to that legislation, there was an 

amendment of the legislation that expanded the deadline on that, 

I think. But we are making for that one standard body—we are ensuring that those standards are available here in Washington, DC, 

in our offices and elsewhere for folks to be able to come and look 

at them. But we have made great progress. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. I am confused. You said they can come to Washington, DC, and take a look at them? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Anyplace that we have an office and have the 

standards available, they can see them for this one particular association. 

Ms. BROWN. But the others—well, who is this one that hasn’t 

met this agreement? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I don’t remember off the top of my head, and 

I don’t want to say the wrong name here. I will get back to you 

on that. 

[The information follows from Hon. Cynthia Quarterman, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration:] 

American Society of Mechanical Engineers. 

Ms. BROWN. I would like to know that name of that one group 

that has not agreed to it, because basically the local respondents 

need to know and be able to—they can’t afford—each little community can’t afford to purchase the regulations, and that is what we 

discussed, and it is a part of the law, and I really would like to 

know when the entire provision has been implemented. 

Also, I understand that there are more than 200,000 miles of 

U.S. lines that is unregulated. Can you explain why this is a major 

concern, and what is your recommendations what we need to do 

about it? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I assume you are referring to gathering lines? 

There was a requirement in the act that we do a study on gathering lines, which we have drafted. It is in circulation, and we hope 

to get it to the committee very, very soon. We also have that in consideration in the pending rulemakings, how to deal with gathering. 

28 

Ms. BROWN. Would anyone else like to respond to that? 

Yes, sir? 

Mr. WEIMER. Yes. The gathering line issue is one of our major 

issues. For instance, just a couple of years ago, there was 10,000 

new miles of pipelines that went into the State of Pennsylvania; 

9,200 of those miles were totally unregulated rural gathering lines 

that run past people’s homes. While the Marcellus shale has been 

a great economic opportunity, it is also putting people at risk, and 

the regulations haven’t kept up with that. 

Ms. BROWN. So what is your recommendation? 

Mr. WEIMER. Well, we feel that gathering lines that are the same 

size, diameter and same risk as the gas transmission lines ought 

to be regulated the same as gas transmission lines, and we are 

hoping that is what PHMSA is recommending as they come forward with the rulemaking. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Ms. Hahn. 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you. 

I am still upset about what happened in my community of Wilmington, and while I appreciate my colleague who—the oil company in his community is handing out ball caps and refrigerator 

magnets, my community, the jackhammering afterwards to reach 

the pipeline and cap it caused driveways to be cracked, refrigerators to be ruined, grass to die. The whole neighborhood is ruined 

because of this company who failed to inspect their own pipeline 

and didn’t even know that it was full of oil, or they were bypassing 

the process of abandoning it, and, again, it caused huge havoc in 

this community. 

I am going to introduce legislation that I think would help to 

close these loopholes and accomplish two goals. One, the first legislation would ensure that a company purchasing a pipeline actually 

does its due diligence, and it would be Federal law to know what 

the status is within 180 days of purchasing the pipeline and have 

that information available to the public. 

And the second, it would require that for a pipeline to be designated as abandoned, either PHMSA or the State authority would 

need to be present at the time of the inspection. 

And I am just going to ask you, Ms. Quarterman, what kind of 

resources would PHMSA need to accomplish these two goals? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Well, the first half of that I don’t think is a 

PHMSA resource question. The second half, in addition to the inspectors that PHMSA has, there are another 300 inspectors, approximately, that are funded by States. I would have to go back 

and probably do an estimate of how many—— 

Ms. HAHN. About how many pipelines are determined abandoned 

every year? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I don’t know the answer to that. We would 

have to do a calculation based on the number that are abandoned, 

unless one of the gentleman here could address that issue, and an 

estimate of how much time it would take us to do that. 

Ms. HAHN. Again, I am all for emergency response and awareness in the community, but I would like to prevent the ones that 

happened in Wilmington from ever happening. 

29 

What kind of penalties or fines would this company be liable for 

in this recent incident? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Each State adopts their civil penalty amounts. 

Ours are high. Not every State has the same level of civil penalties. 

One of our initiatives is to ensure that all States are increasing 

their civil penalties. I know California, at least on the gas pipeline 

side, has very high civil penalty authority. I am not sure what they 

have on the State side, though, in their law. 

Ms. HAHN. Would you be levying the fine, or is this just the State 

would be doing this? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. In this instance it was under the State’s jurisdiction, so it would be the State levying the fine. 

Ms. HAHN. OK. Thank you. 

Would any of the rest of you like to comment on my proposed legislation? 

Mr. SANTA. Ms. Hahn, for interstate natural gas pipelines, abandonment is required by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. That is in part because when the pipe is put into service, it 

requires FERC approval; to take it out of service or convert it to 

another use, it requires FERC approval. There is a public record 

there. There is a public proceeding with notice. And also there are, 

as has been noted, PHMSA requirements on the gas side as well 

that apply to taking the pipeline out of service. So I think on the 

interstate gas pipeline side, I think we have got a pretty transparent and effective regime already. 

Mr. PIERSON. In the hazardous liquids industry, a pipeline, if it 

is not flowing, is still regulated. And so if it is full and not flowing, 

it is still regulated and falls under the same regulatory regime. 

Ms. HAHN. But if it is not—if this company claimed it was empty 

and idle? 

Mr. PIERSON. As Ms. Quarterman mentioned, there isn’t necessarily a term of ‘‘idled.’’ 

Ms. HAHN. Right. 

Mr. PIERSON. And we would—if there is language or movement 

on that, we would be interested in seeing what PHMSA would propose on how to make—— 

Ms. HAHN. When a company purchases a pipeline, would you be 

opposed to this idea that within 180 days, the information about 

what is in that pipeline ought to be available? This was a full pipeline. 

Mr. PIERSON. Yes. I am not familiar with all the details of the 

incident that you are talking about, but if there were language out 

there and an area for improvement, we would listen and talk about 

it. 

Ms. HAHN. Thank you. 

Mr. Bradley? 

Mr. BRADLEY. Absolutely. On the distribution side we have a 

number of rules, distribution and transmission, for retiring pipeline, when we tie in brand-new pipeline and purge and clear out. 

If we hold natural gas pressure in that pipeline, we still treat it 

as requiring preventive maintenance inspections, if it is steel cathodic protection, et cetera. I don’t see there being an issue with 

the rule that you are proposing. 

30 

Ms. HAHN. I just want this sort of third-party verification for our 

communities. The honor system is great, but it failed us. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mrs. CAPITO. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. Thank you. 

If there are 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 really like to thank our witnesses today, again, for your 

testimony. 

If no other Members have anything to add, the subcommittee 

stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

31 


Insert offset folio 6 here 87962.006
32 


Insert offset folio 7 here 87962.007
33 


Insert offset folio 8 here 87962.008
34 


Insert offset folio 9 here 87962.009
35 


Insert offset folio 10 here 87962.010
36 


Insert offset folio 11 here 87962.011
37 


Insert offset folio 12 here 87962.012
38 


Insert offset folio 13 here 87962.013
39 


Insert offset folio 14 here 87962.014
40 


Insert offset folio 15 here 87962.015
41 


Insert offset folio 16 here 87962.016
42 


Insert offset folio 17 here 87962.017
43 


Insert offset folio 18 here 87962.018
44 


Insert offset folio 19 here 87962.019
45 


Insert offset folio 20 here 87962.020
46 


Insert offset folio 21 here 87962.021
47 


Insert offset folio 22 here 87962.022
48 


Insert offset folio 23 here 87962.023
49 


Insert offset folio 24 here 87962.024
50 


Insert offset folio 25 here 87962.025
51 


Insert offset folio 26 here 87962.026
52 


Insert offset folio 27 here 87962.027
53 


Insert offset folio 28 here 87962.028
54 


Insert offset folio 29 here 87962.029
55 


Insert offset folio 30 here 87962.030
56 


Insert offset folio 31 here 87962.031
57 


Insert offset folio 32 here 87962.032
58 


Insert offset folio 33 here 87962.033
59 


Insert offset folio 34 here 87962.034
60 


Insert offset folio 35 here 87962.035
61 


Insert offset folio 36 here 87962.036
62 


Insert offset folio 37 here 87962.037
63 


Insert offset folio 38 here 87962.038
64 


Insert offset folio 39 here 87962.039
65 


Insert offset folio 40 here 87962.040
66 


Insert offset folio 41 here 87962.041
67 


Insert offset folio 42 here 87962.042
68 


Insert offset folio 43 here 87962.043
69 


Insert offset folio 44 here 87962.044
70 


Insert offset folio 45 here 87962.045
71 


Insert offset folio 46 here 87962.046
72 


Insert offset folio 47 here 87962.047
73 


Insert offset folio 48 here 87962.048
74 


Insert offset folio 49 here 87962.049
75 


Insert offset folio 50 here 87962.050
76 


Insert offset folio 51 here 87962.051
77 


Insert offset folio 52 here 87962.052
78 


Insert offset folio 53 here 87962.053
79 


Insert offset folio 54 here 87962.054
80 


Insert offset folio 55 here 87962.055
81 


Insert offset folio 56 here 87962.056
82 


Insert offset folio 57 here 87962.057
83 


Insert offset folio 58 here 87962.058
84 


Insert offset folio 59 here 87962.059
85 


Insert offset folio 60 here 87962.060
86 


Insert offset folio 61 here 87962.061
87 


Insert offset folio 62 here 87962.062
88 


Insert offset folio 63 here 87962.063
89 


Insert offset folio 64 here 87962.064
90 


Insert offset folio 65 here 87962.065
91 


Insert offset folio 66 here 87962.066
92 


Insert offset folio 67 here 87962.067
93 


Insert offset folio 68 here 87962.068
94 


Insert offset folio 69 here 87962.069
95 


Insert offset folio 70 here 87962.070
96 


Insert offset folio 71 here 87962.071
97 


Insert offset folio 72 here 87962.072
98 


Insert offset folio 73 here 87962.073
99 


Insert offset folio 74 here 87962.074
100 


Insert offset folio 75 here 87962.075
101 


Insert offset folio 76 here 87962.076
102 


Insert offset folio 77 here 87962.077
103 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 78 here 87962.078