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

57–561 PDF 2010

PIPELINE SAFETY: PUBLIC 

AWARENESS AND EDUCATION 

(111–132) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

July 21, 2010 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

JOHN A. BOCCIERI, Ohio 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

JOHN GARAMENDI, California 

HANK JOHNSON, Georgia 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentuckyd 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida Chairwoman 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

HARRY TEAGUE, New Mexico 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota, Vice Chair 

MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

MARK H. SCHAUER, Michigan 

BETSY MARKEY, Colorado 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

THOMAS S. P. PERRIELLO, Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(ex officio) 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennylvania 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

LYNN A. WESTMORELND, Georgia 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

VACANCY 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

Summary of Subject Matter .................................................................................... vi 

TESTIMONY 

Davis, Sam, General Manager and Chief Exective Officer, Lake Apopka Natural Gas District, Winter Garden, Florida, on behalf of the American Public 

Gas Association .................................................................................................... 13 

Kessler, Rick, Vice President of the Board of Directors, Pipeline Safety Trust . 13 

Kipp, Bob, President, Common Ground Alliance .................................................. 13 

Lidiak, Peter, Pipeline Director, American Petroleum Institute ......................... 13 

O’Rourke, Peter, Director of Energy Programs, National Association of State 

Fire Marshals ....................................................................................................... 13 

Quarterman, Hon. Cynthia, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation ............................ 2 

Tahamtani, Massoud, Director, Division of Utility and Railroad Safety, Virginia State Corporation Commission, on behalf of the National Association 

of Pipeline Safety Representatives ..................................................................... 13 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Cohen, Hon. Steve, of Tennessee ............................................................................ 32 

Richardson, Hon. Laura, of California ................................................................... 33 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Davis, Sam ............................................................................................................... 41 

Kessler, Rick ............................................................................................................ 54 

Kipp, Bob .................................................................................................................. 75 

Lidiak, Peter ............................................................................................................ 93 

O’Rourke, Peter ........................................................................................................ 107 

Quarterman, Hon. Cynthia ..................................................................................... 115 

Tahamtani, Massoud ............................................................................................... 152 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Davis, Sam, General Manager and Chief Exective Officer, Lake Apopka Natural Gas District, Winter Garden, Florida, on behalf of the American Public 

Gas Association, response to request for information from the Subcommittee .............................................................................................................. 52 

Kessler, Rick, Vice President of the Board of Directors, Pipeline Safety Trust, 

response to request for information from the Subcommittee ........................... 70 

Kipp, Bob, President, Common Ground Alliance, response to request for information from the Subcommittee ........................................................................... 90 

Lidiak, Peter, Pipeline Director, American Petroleum Institute, response to 

request for information from the Subcommittee ............................................... 101 

O’Rourke, Peter, Director of Energy Programs, National Association of State 

Fire Marshals, response to request for information from the Subcommittee . 111 

Quarterman, Hon. Cynthia, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, response to request for information from the Subcommittee ................................................... 124 

Tahamtani, Massoud, Director, Division of Utility and Railroad Safety, Virginia State Corporation Commission, on behalf of the National Association 

of Pipeline Safety Representatives ..................................................................... 158 

vi 


Insert offset folio 1 here 57561.001
vii 


Insert offset folio 2 here 57561.002
viii 


Insert offset folio 3 here 57561.003
ix 


Insert offset folio 4 here 57561.004
x 


Insert offset folio 5 here 57561.005
xi 


Insert offset folio 6 here 57561.006
xii 


Insert offset folio 7 here 57561.007
xiii 


Insert offset folio 8 here 57561.008
(1) 

PIPELINE SAFETY: PUBLIC AWARENESS AND 

EDUCATION 

Wednesday, July 21, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:36 p.m., in room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Corrine Brown [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. The Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials will come to order. The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on Pipeline Safety: 

Public Awareness and Education. This hearing is the fourth in a 

series of oversight hearings the Subcommittee will hold as we look 

toward reauthorizing the Department’s pipeline safety program. 

The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002 required each 

owner or operator of a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility to 

develop and implement a public education program. Each program 

should educate the public on the possible hazardous associated 

with unintended releases from the pipeline facility, the physical indications that such a release may have occurred, what steps should 

be taken for public safety in the event of a pipeline release, and 

how to report such an event. The program also had to educate the 

public on the use of a One Call notification system prior to evacuation and other damage-prevention activities. 

In addition, the 2002 law required each owner or operator of a 

gas or hazardous liquid pipeline facility to review its existing public 

education program for effectiveness and modify the program as 

necessary. The completed program had to include activities to advise affected municipalities, school districts, businesses, and residents of pipeline facility locations, and be submitted to the Secretary for review. 

On May 5th, with the strong support of our Subcommittee, the 

House passed House Resolution 1278, a bill to designate the month 

of April as National Safe Digging Month. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, along with many States 

and stakeholders across our Nation, are working together to encourage all homeowners and contractors to call 811 before they dig. 

According to PHMSA, the One Call notification system has 

helped reduce the number of incidents caused by excavation damage, from 57 percent in 2004 to 35 percent in 2009. Clearly these 

numbers speak for themselves. Indeed, it is extremely important to 

2 

call 811, the Call Before You Dig line, and it is such an easy way 

for individuals and companies to save lives, the environment, our 

Nation’s infrastructure, and even save money and investments. 

We have undoubtedly made some positive steps in educating the 

public about the dangers of underground utilities; however, the verdict is still out on the operators’ education program and whether 

or not they will be effective. I hope today’s hearing will shed some 

light on the needs of the program and to ensure that these programs are working correctly, and that communities and first responders are getting the information they need to prepare for an 

accident. 

With that, I want to welcome today’s panelists and thank you for 

joining us. I am looking forward to hearing their testimony. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Before I yield to Mr. Shuster, I ask the 

Members to be given 14 days to revise and extend their remarks 

and to permit the submission of additional statements and materials for Members and witnesses. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I now yield to Mr. Shuster for his opening statement. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I thank the Chairwoman, and welcome to the Administrator for being here again. We will have to set up a desk in 

the back for you so you don’t have to traipse from downtown every 

week. It is good to have you. 

I would like unanimous consent to submit my full statement for 

the record. I will keep it short because we have talked to the Administrator a number of times on these issues and others over the 

last year. 

My one question I will have today at some point for you or for 

your staff to research it, there are some States, some government 

entities out there that have exempted themselves or are exempted 

from the 811, Call Before You Dig. And I just wondered what 

States were that? Is that actually happening? Because it just 

doesn’t make any sense to me at all that anybody would exempt 

themselves because of something so simple, and something that 

could avoid accidents and bad situations. 

So that is what I submit for the record for your staff, and maybe 

you can get back to me on that. 

It is good to have you here today, and I yield back. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I am pleased to introduce the Honorable 

Cynthia Quarterman, who is the Administrator of the U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration. 

I want to welcome you, and I want to thank you. I think this is 

your fourth time coming before the Committee. So that is—I mean, 

thank you so very much, and the floor is yours. 

TESTIMONY OF CYNTHIA QUARTERMAN, ADMINISTRATOR, 

PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Thank you for having me again, Chairwoman 

Brown, Ranking Member Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Are you sure about that? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Absolutely, it is my pleasure. 

3 

Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today. Secretary LaHood, the employees of PHMSA and 

the entire Department share public safety as their top priority. The 

Department holds a strong commitment to preventing spills on all 

pipelines through regulation, oversight, public awareness and education. 

PHMSA works with a broad stakeholder community to shape 

many of our public awareness, education and damage-prevention 

initiatives. With the help of its stakeholders, PHMSA has made 

great progress in reducing the number of serious pipeline incidents 

by 50 percent over the last 20 years. PHMSA aims to continue this 

downward trend in pipeline incidents through increased efforts in 

outreach and public awareness programs, State funding and enforcement. 

For years PHMSA has been at the forefront of finding effective 

solutions to prevent excavation damages to underground pipelines. 

Since 2002, PHMSA has provided over $2.2 million in funding assistance to the Common Ground Alliance to support the 811 educational outreach campaign. This year the United States Senate, 

the House of Representatives and the Transportation Secretary 

Ray LaHood all promoted the importance of calling before you dig 

by designating April as National Safe Digging Month, and I thank 

this Committee for your work on that. 

In addition, at PHMSA’s urging, 40 States, including those represented by Members of this Subcommittee, also followed suit with 

a statewide Safe Digging Month proclamation. In support of these 

efforts, PHMSA is encouraging States to help spread the damage 

prevention message. PHMSA’s One Call and State Damage Prevention grant programs fund improvements in State and community 

damage-prevention efforts. Since 1995, PHMSA has awarded over 

$14 million in One Call grants. An additional $4 million in State 

Damage Prevention grants have been provided to States since 

2008. 

Accompanying its grant programs, PHMSA is preparing local officials to be public education resources within their communities 

and helping citizens learn how they can protect themselves and 

pipelines. 

PHMSA has implemented many nonregulatory programs that 

contribute to public awareness, including the National Pipeline 

Mapping System, the Community Assistance and Technical Service 

Representatives, the Pipelines and Informed Planning Alliance, operator public awareness programs, Technical Assistance grants, 

and direct access to information on its stakeholders communication 

Web site. 

In addition, PHMSA’s relationship with the National Association 

of State Fire Marshals and the International Association of Fire 

Chiefs has resulted in the availability of training materials that assist first responders in responding safely and efficiently to and effectively to pipeline emergencies. 

While PHMSA has accomplished many goals with its State partners and other stakeholders in pipeline safety, it is important that 

States continue to recognize the role that effective and fair enforcement plays in reducing excavation damage to underground infrastructure. PHMSA is developing a rulemaking to pursue adminisVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:15 Dec 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57561.0 KAYLA
4 

trative civil penalties against excavators who violate damage-prevention requirements and damage a pipeline in the absence of effective enforcement by the State where it occurred. The hope is 

that this rulemaking, along with all the current public awareness 

initiatives, will highlight the importance for all stakeholders to call 

811 before digging, to respect the marks identifying the locations 

of underground utilities, and to practice safe digging techniques. 

PHMSA looks forward to increasing its efforts in national and 

State damage prevention and public awareness programs, and 

working with Congress to yield further results in pipeline safety. 

Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may 

have. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

Mr. Walz—— 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. —for opening statements and any questions that you may have. 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you very much, and I thank the Ranking Member. 

Ms. Quarterman, I, too, want to express my thanks. You have 

been here, and incredibly accessible to each of us, to help us learn 

about this important issue. I look forward to every one of these. I 

learn something new. I think this issue of educating the public is— 

we have made strides in, there is no doubt about it, from the One 

Calls and the institute. Our pipeline operators have made a great 

effort of that. 

I just have a couple of questions as we are trying to get this out 

and let the public know on this. I am going to go down this line 

of questioning since 2002 in the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act, 

and there were some things that were supposed to have happened 

with the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. And one of the questions 

we had in talking with the staff, did PHMSA publish the recommended practice in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or in the 

rulemaking docket so the public could see that? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. And now you are referring to the public 

awareness? 

Mr. WALZ. That is right. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. That rulemaking process was developed with 

input by PHMSA and NAPSR, which are our State partners. During the rulemaking process I believe that it was made available. 

The recommended practice was actually published by the API, the 

American Petroleum Institute, and they made it available to the 

public on their Web site during that period for free. 

Mr. WALZ. If I am right on that, there are 69 API standards in 

pipeline safety and 151 standards in HAZMAT. We looked into it. 

It costs $93 per standard to see that. So for the public to get it, 

it would be several thousand dollars. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. It would be quite expensive for them to get all 

the standards. 

Mr. WALZ. Well, how do we do that if this is about educating 

them and about making it accessible? Can we do better on that regard? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Well, I think this is a governmentwide issue, 

to be candid with you. There is a statute that exists, the Congress 

5 

promulgated, encouraging government agencies to use these national standards, these industry standards. And the administration 

executive branch through OMB has issued several guidelines encouraging, again, the Federal Government to use and adopt these 

standards. There are, as you mentioned, several within PHMSA 

that have been adopted. We are in quite a few working groups 

right now developing many national standards. However, as—— 

Mr. WALZ. Do we need to do something to help? Because I don’t 

think anything sinister in this; I think it is just a case of trying 

to disseminate it to the public in the easiest, most cost-effective 

manner. If it is a transparency issue to try and get it out, and if 

it is about educating them, is there anything we can do that you 

can see that could help do that? Because in the case here, I don’t 

have any particular question towards the standards themselves; it 

is just about the access to the public to get them. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Well, it might be useful to have a panel, 

should we say a committee, put together by Congress to look into 

this issue how we might make these standards more publicly available, because I agree with you, it would be great if they were more 

accessible to everyone. 

Mr. WALZ. I appreciate that. 

I have no further questions, and I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

I just wanted, again, to reiterate my first questions. I don’t know 

if you have the answer to it, but if staff could send this over, you 

know, what groups, who has exempted themselves from the 811, I 

would certainly like to know that. If you get that to me, that would 

be great. 

The second question or concern of mine that the Pipeline Safety 

Trust claims that they helped PHMSA develop the evaluation criteria used to select recipients for your Technical Assistant grants, 

and the Pipeline Safety Trust was awarded one of these grants. 

And is that a conflict of interest for a group to participate in the 

criterion evaluation and then receive funding? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Well, I am not aware of that situation. I—that 

would be something that would be of concern to me, I would have 

to say. But I don’t know the specifics of that situation. I would 

have to go and look at that. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Sure. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. As to the exemption question, there are many 

States that have in it their laws exemptions to the One Call law. 

It is my belief that those exemptions should be eliminated. Very recently the State of Maryland was adopting a new One Call law, 

and there was an exemption planned for the Department of Transportation. We did have conversations with them, and that exemption was removed from the law. 

Different States have different exemptions. Some of them relate 

to farmers, some of them relate to the Department of Transportation, others relate to the railroads. I would like to see all of those 

exemptions removed. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And I guess my concern is does anybody really not 

make the call that you know of? There may have been exemptions 

in there, and I am not a big proponent of the Federal Government 

6 

having sweeping laws necessarily, but it just seems to me to be just 

plain stupid to go digging without calling someone and saying, is 

there a gas line, or is there a cable or something here. 

If you could get back to me, I would appreciate it. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Unfortunately there were three incidents in 

the past month where four people were killed. Now, we are still in 

the process of investigating that. We don’t know if everyone called 

in all of those instances, and perhaps the markings were wrong. 

That is still under investigation. But in my view, all of those 

deaths were absolutely preventable if the One Call law was complete, and people did everything that they were responsible for 

doing. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Nadler. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

I want to follow up on some of the questions asked by Mr. Walz. 

It seems to me it is an awfully closed-door process in which, if I 

want to know what the regulations are, I read the PHMSA regs, 

and it refers me to a private organization’s regs, which will cost me 

money to get, and a large amount of money. 

Secondly, the regulations are developed by these private organizations with a PHMSA representative, but the public is excluded; 

am I correct? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Well, usually both at the State and PHMSA 

representatives are involved in these—— 

Mr. NADLER. The State and PHMSA representatives, but if I 

want to go there and observe—— 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. The public could be involved in the process if 

they wanted to, or if they wanted to become a part of the process, 

but, you know, from our perspective our responsibility is to represent the public. 

Mr. NADLER. But none of the proceedings are published. None of 

the proceedings or minutes of the meetings are published. If you 

want to see the—no drafts are published, although a draft may be 

published, but refers to the industry group, the API, for instance, 

regs or standards, which you have to purchase at an expensive 

amount, which really closes out everybody, correct? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. With respect to the particular standard that 

we are referring to here, it was made public, but that is not—— 

Mr. NADLER. No, no, no. When you say it was made public, it 

was made public only if I purchase the stuff from the API. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Not with respect to the public awareness regulation. This was made public on the API Web site at the time the 

regulation was—— 

Mr. NADLER. It was made public for a short period of time during 

the comment. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Right. 

Mr. NADLER. I can’t get it. If I don’t have a lot of money, I can’t 

get it. I can’t read the Federal Register and get it. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. My understanding is it is no longer publicly 

available, so if you wanted it now, you would have to purchase it. 

Mr. NADLER. What excuse is there for keeping this that way? 

Why shouldn’t this all be public? Why should I have to purchase 

it? 

7 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Well, PHMSA can’t make that happen. 

Mr. NADLER. Excuse me, I think PHMSA can. The law says 

that—the law you quoted is that you are encouraged to involve 

these private groups, but you are not required to. And I think that 

you could require that all this be public. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I would have to talk to my lawyers about that. 

I think they might disagree with that, but we would be happy— 

if we could force it to happen, we would do it. 

Mr. NADLER. Would you get back to us with your lawyers’ opinion on that? Because I think it is within the jurisdiction of the 

agency to require that this be available. Certainly the normal—the 

normal proceeding is that a regulatory agency such as PHMSA can 

make your own regulation. That regulation could—with a proper 

rulemaking procedure, that regulation could provide that all of 

these regulations be available publicly, and that insofar as the regulation references an API or some other private thing, that that be 

available publicly, in fact that it be right there. I see no reason why 

you couldn’t do that. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. We will investigate it. 

Mr. NADLER. OK. Well, I hope you do investigate it, because 

when the agency issues a rule that says that the programs have 

to be based on a private group, in this case API’s recommended 

practice 1162, that recommended practice 1162 ought to be quoted 

in its entirety right there. Anything else is really excluding the 

public, and especially in this time period when there is a lot of, 

shall we say, skepticism about private groups, especially groups 

dealing with safety in the aftermath of BP and everything else. To 

require someone who wants to know what the safety regulations 

are to pay $100,000, which is what it would take to get most of this 

information, might lead some people to think that not everything 

is totally open. 

So I hope you will take this under advisement and will get back 

to us either stating that you will institute a rulemaking procedure 

to make it all open and available on the Federal Web site or whatever without having people having to come up with money, or give 

us a good legal reason, a real legal reason, why it is not within the 

jurisdiction of the agency to do, which I believe it is. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Well, I would certainly be supportive of having everything available to the public for free. So if it is feasible, 

then it will happen. 

Mr. NADLER. Very good. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Schauer. 

Mr. SCHAUER. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for being 

with us. 

Just want to talk a little bit more about the standard for public 

education programs and involvement of industry representatives 

versus public representatives. And I know in June of 2004, PHMSA 

published the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking requiring each pipeline operator to develop and implement proposed education programs based on provisions of the American Petroleum Institute’s 

recommended practice 1162. It sounds like a multi-industry task 

force was comprised with representatives of hazardous liquid, gas 

transmission, gas distribution, pipeline operators, trade organizations. So I guess the real question is was there an opportunity for 

8 

the general public to be a part of that standard? Has PHMSA voted 

on the final standard? And what was the ratio of PHMSA representatives on this multi-industry task force compared to industry 

representation? 

The point is if these are programs to educate the public, we need 

to make sure that the public is there at the table and this, again, 

isn’t something that is just designed by industry. So I am just curious about your response to that. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I don’t know the numbers of people from each 

part of the public, or private or government. That is something we 

can look up and get back to you on, absolutely. And I agree the 

public should be represented, and it is PHMSA’s role to represent 

the public. 

Mr. SCHAUER. Well, if we sort of think about this, and I think 

sometimes the government forgets that, and sometimes industry 

forgets, industry is there to make a profit, certainly you would 

think that acting in a safe, responsible manner would be good for 

their profits. But as we saw from BP, they cut corners and put 

profits before safety. 

We need to make sure that the end users, consumers, the public 

is really engaged and certainly in these public education programs 

aimed at safety. So I would urge you to take that into account in 

future rulemaking. 

Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Ms. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Sorry about that, Madam Chair. 

I had a couple of questions, Ms. Quarterman, in regard to pipeline oil safety in my district, specifically to a major oil pipeline and 

oil tank leak that has been under investigation and continued remediation for decades. Polluter: the Air Force. 

In your experience does the public sector or private sector oil operators do a better jobs of education, protection and remediation? 

What factors contribute to this? And what can we do to be able to 

impress upon any of the services how critical it is to clean up their 

own mess? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I am not familiar with the particular instance 

that you are—I think I have heard something about it. I believe it 

is the military—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Correct. It is a transfer station. It is transportation related. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I am sorry, could you repeat your question exactly? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, the public sector, the private sector, all 

operators do a better jobs of education, protection and remediation. 

What contributes to this? I know, because I have been on there 

particular issue for over 20-some-odd years, and it is like pulling 

hen’s teeth to get the Armed Forces to do anything that is going 

to protect the health and safety of the community. This is a proven 

carcinogen in that particular leak. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Well, with respect to public awareness, our 

regulations require that operators of hazardous liquid pipelines put 

in place public awareness programs that inform the public about 

the location of pipelines or storage facilities, what products are 

9 

there, what they should be looking for in case of a leak, how they 

should respond if something were to happen. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Would you hold that thought? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Sure. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Because it took us about 10 years to try to get 

an open meeting with the Department of Defense on this particular 

tank farm. They would not even allow us to go on site to inspect, 

or anybody else. So maybe apprise to the public sector, but not— 

I mean, to the private sector but not to the public. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I don’t know if we have oversight of this particular facility if it is defense related—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. It was. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. —as opposed to transportation related. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Correct. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. But—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Maybe I can take it up with you later. That 

is not a problem. 

The second one is the remediation of selenium that is being 

found in some of the discharges to the remediation wells and has 

forced the shutdown of 13 of the 23 remediation wells. 

But what can the oil companies and the pipeline companies do 

when there is no course to be able to continue their remediation? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Remediation of? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Selenium and carcinogens. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Well, they should—obviously they 

areresponsible for cleaning up those spills under some Federal regulation. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Maybe I can take that up with you and get 

further information. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Yes. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. The other question that I had was the following a serious pipeline accident in 2007, NTSB made a safety 

recommendation to PHMSA to initiate a program to evaluate pipeline operators’ public education programs, including pipeline operation self-evaluation of effectiveness of the public education programs. It is our understanding that PHMSA wanted to wait until 

after of June 2010 this year, which has already passed, to have a 

better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the existing public awareness requirements after reviewing operator effectiveness evaluations. 

Has PHMSA reviewed the operation effective evaluations, and 

does PHMSA plan to respond to NTSB safety recommendations, 

and can this Subcommittee be made aware of those findings? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Absolutely we are in the process of responding 

to that NTSB recommendation. There was an evaluation work 

group that was held on June 30th of this year to go over what the 

States and PHMSA together should do going forward in terms of 

evaluating the public awareness programs that the companies have 

had now for years of use of their public awareness programs. We 

would like them to do an evaluation of what they have done so far, 

and then beginning in the fall, we will start with our State partners inspecting the evaluation that the companies have done of 

their public awareness program. We are already on—whenever we 

go out for an inspection, we do an evaluation of their public awareVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:15 Dec 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57561.0 KAYLA
10 

ness program, but this is sort of an add-on, sort of a look-back of 

what they have done so far. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Is this self-reporting? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Well, they do an evaluation, and we will review what they have done. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But do you actually physically look at the actual delivery of that program delivery? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Well, we look at the plan, we look at the evaluation of the plan, and then we determine whether or not to give 

them a violation based on what they have or have not done. Now, 

if there has been an incident where it is obvious that something 

in the plan failed, and that may be the case in some of the recent 

incidents where there were problems with public awareness plans, 

then they would, of course, get a violation as a result of that. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

Ms. Titus. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you for 

joining us again today. 

I just want to ask you a few questions about the Technical Assistance Grant program. As I understand it, that was part of the 

original Pipeline Safety Act of 2002, but the first round of grants 

didn’t go out until September of 2009, but when they did go out, 

they were successful. A number of independent communities across 

the country were able to hire technical advisors to help them assess 

just what the pipes were that were running through there, how to 

keep them safe, and what to do in case they weren’t. 

I also understand now you are about to do maybe a second round 

of these grants. I wonder if you could just address for us some 

questions about how this process is going to work. Some of those 

questions you might consider, are we sure we have the funding, is 

that clear? Are we going forward with the funding? It is going to 

be reauthorized first? 

Second, as you look at the second round, are you considering any 

alterations to the application process, like maybe raising the cap on 

the amount of the grants or removing the limitation on funding 

sources for the grant? Is that part of the process? 

Third, is there any better effort to do public outreach and promotion so people know that these grants are available? 

And finally, I think this is going to be brought up in later testimony, but since it is the reverse order, I will ask you now. There 

is some rumor out there that some pipeline projects are going to 

be part of some of the applications from municipal governments 

where the law strictly says that those kinds of pipeline projects are 

not what is intended to be funded by this money. 

If you could address those things for us generally, I would appreciate it. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Absolutely. The Pipeline Safety Improvement 

Act of 2002 did authorize the TAG, Technical Assistance Grant program, we call them TAG grant programs. The first appropriations 

for that program were not until fiscal 2009. There were some initial 

monies that were able to be brought to bear to do some initial pilot 

projects. Beginning in fiscal 2009, we actually got a million dollars 

appropriated for that program, and I think the limitation is 

11 

$50,000 per grantee. The first round, close—there was a million 

dollars appropriated to the program. Close to a million dollars was 

made available for grantees in that program. 

We are right now in the middle of the next year’s review for fiscal year 2010. We have received—I forgot how many, but numerous 

applications for that program, and we are in the process of reviewing those applications for announcements before the end of the fiscal year. So we are in the middle of the process right now, so I 

can’t tell you about any particular awardee at this point. 

Ms. TITUS. Well, is it a major consideration of yours to be sure 

that these awards are in keeping with the original—— 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Oh, absolutely. They won’t be going—— 

Ms. TITUS. And do you have any concern about the future funding of these grants? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. It is in the President’s budget for fiscal year 

2011. Obviously we are waiting to see what happens with that, but 

it is in the President’s request. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I just have a follow-up to that question 

also. How much—did you say those grants were for a million dollars, the awardees? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. There was a million dollars appropriated for 

the grants, and I think each of them could be up to $50,000 apiece. 

And the final award was 900-something thousand dollars, so close 

to a million dollars. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. That seems to be a very small amount 

considering the magnitude of the program, the need for the program. Did you all request more? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. We—I wasn’t here then, so I can’t really answer that question. I can research it for you. I don’t know what 

was requested. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Well, how effective do you think the program is? Have you all evaluated the program? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. We haven’t evaluated it. So far it has only 

been through 1 fiscal year, and I haven’t had a summary of what 

the results were so far. 

I think the idea for it is fantastic. And it may be, as the Member 

suggested, we need to do more to publicize it to get more communities to come forward and ask for monies, and we will work on 

that, absolutely. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. You said have you received numerous 

applications, though? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Yes, we have. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Do you know how many applications 

you all have received? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I know in fiscal 2009, we had 21 grantees. For 

this fiscal year I don’t know how many applications we have gotten, but I know there are a lot. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. OK. On the second panel that is coming 

up, there was a discussion about the Governors-appointed Pipeline 

Safety Advisory Committee to increase public awareness and education, and it seems as if your agency has not promoted it. Can you 

tell us why, since it was part of a 2002 authorization? 

12 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I am sorry, I am not familiar with that. I will 

have to get back to you on that. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. OK. Well, would you all get back to us 

in answer to that? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Yes, sure. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. How many inspectors does DOT have on 

duty today to conduct inspections? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. We have 135—under the authorization, we 

have slots for 135 inspection enforcement personnel. We actually 

have in our budget 136 personnel. I believe we have 102 on board, 

and have offers outstanding or accepted offers to another 18 or so, 

and then another 6 are in interview, but that information is probably about a month old. So hopefully we will have even more people coming in. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Has PHMSA taken any enforcement action against pipeline operators for failing to implement an effective 

public education program as prescribed by the regulations? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I would have to get back to you on that as 

well. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Also, have any States taken any enforcement action against an operator for failing to comply with the 

Federal regulations regarding public awareness programs. So 

would you have to get back with me on that also, I guess? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Yes. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Are there any additional questions? 

Do you have any additional comments that you want to make? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. If I might, I would like to recognize the staff 

of PHMSA, the pipeline staff. At the end of the hearing several 

months ago now, I called to the attention the career folks who work 

for me, and I just want to say that we have a wonderful group of 

career people who are extremely dedicated to pipeline safety working for us, and I just want to let them know that we appreciate all 

they have done, and I appreciate it. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Well, thank you for your leadership. 

This is a trying time for us, making sure that we be very proactive 

in dealing with our responsibilities. I don’t want what happened 

with the Horizon Deepwater to happen to our Committee and we 

are wondering, oh, we should have had this in place, or we should 

have made sure that we had the regulations in place or the inspections. So I appreciate your forward thinking and working with the 

Committee. I am sure we will present to the Congress a reauthorization bill that will cover the things that we need to cover in our 

reauthorization. So thank you for your leadership. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Panel 2. 

I am pleased to introduce the second panel of witnesses. We have 

with us Mr. Rick Kessler, vice president of the Board of Directors 

of the Pipeline Safety Trust. 

And we have Mr. Massoud Tahamtani. Help me out here; what 

is your name? 

Mr. TAHAMTANI. Tahamtani. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Tahamtani. 

Mr. TAHAMTANI. Tahamtani. 

13 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Welcome. Director of the Division of 

Utilities and Railroad Safety of the Virginia State Corporation 

Commission, on behalf of the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives. 

And we have Mr. Bob Kipp, president of the Common Ground; 

and Mr. Peter O’Rourke, Director of Energy Programs for the National Association of State Fire Marshals. And we have Mr. Sam 

Davis, general manager and CEO of the Lake Apopka—in my 

area—Natural Gas District in Winter Garden, Florida, on behalf of 

the American Public Gas Association. And finally, Mr. Peter 

Lidiak—what is that last name? 

Mr. LIDIAK. Lidiak. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. OK. Pipeline director of the American 

Petroleum Institute. 

Welcome. We are very pleased to have all of you here with us 

this afternoon. But first let me remind each of you under the Committee rules oral statements must be limited to 5 minutes, and 

your entire statement will appear in the record, and, of course, we 

will have time for questioning. 

Mr. Kessler. 

TESTIMONY OF RICK KESSLER, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, PIPELINE SAFETY TRUST; MASSOUD 

TAHAMTANI, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF UTILITY AND RAILROAD SAFETY, VIRGINIA STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION, ON BEHALF OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PIPELINE 

SAFETY REPRESENTATIVES; BOB KIPP, PRESIDENT, COMMON GROUND ALLIANCE; PETER O’ROURKE, DIRECTOR OF 

ENERGY PROGRAMS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE 

FIRE MARSHALS; SAM DAVIS, GENERAL MANAGER AND CEO, 

LAKE APOPKA NATURAL GAS DISTRICT, WINTER GARDEN, 

FLORIDA, ON BEHALF OF AMERICAN PUBLIC GAS ASSOCIATION; AND PETER LIDIAK, PIPELINE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN 

PETROLEUM INSTITUTE 

Mr. KESSLER. Chairwoman Brown, and Ranking Member Shuster, Members of the Subcommittee, good afternoon, and thank you 

for allowing me the honor of testifying at this hearing. My name 

is Rick Kessler. I am here today in my role as vice president of the 

Pipeline Safety Trust, the Nation’s leading nonprofit organization 

dedicated to improving the safety of our country’s pipeline system. 

Overall we believe the public has the right to know about the 

safety of pipelines affecting communities, and that providing this 

information is good for the public, good for the environment, and 

ultimately good for the pipeline companies who will benefit from 

having better informed citizens living near their facilities. Greater 

transparency in all aspects of pipeline safety will lead to increased 

awareness, involvement, review, and ultimately safety. That is why 

we strongly believe Congress should make citizen right-to-know 

provisions a top priority for inclusion in the next reauthorization. 

Over the last 8 years, PHMSA has done a pretty good job of increasing transparency for many aspects of pipeline safety. One of 

the true successes has been PHMSA’s rapid implementation of the 

2006 Act’s enforcement transparency section. Now affected commuVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:15 Dec 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57561.0 KAYLA
14 

nities can log on to the PHMSA web site and review enforcement 

actions regarding local pipelines. 

We would like to see PHMSA go even farther to create a webbased system to allow public access to specific inspection information about pipelines, including when PHMSA inspected a given 

pipeline, types of inspections performed, what was found, and how 

concerns were addressed. Just as Congress required PHMSA to institute enforcement transparency in the 2006 Act, the Trust urges 

Congress to require similar inspection transparency this year. But 

other information must be more readily available, too, including information about high-consequence areas and emergency response 

plans. 

In response to the latter, while onshore oil pipeline operators are 

required to prepare spill response plans, to our knowledge, the 

plans are not public documents and certainly aren’t easily available 

documents. Further, the process to develop these plans is closed to 

the public. This must be fixed. 

The BP Gulf of Mexico disaster illuminated not only the last 

point, but also the dicey practice of Federal agencies incorporating 

into the regulation standards developed by the very entities they 

oversee. Like MMS, PHMSA incorporated into its regulations 

standards developed by organizations made up in whole or in part 

of industry representatives, approximately 85 in all. 

Clearly the pipeline industry has considerable knowledge and expertise in certain areas that must be tapped. They must be tapped 

to draft standards that are technically correct and can be implemented efficiently. But when a regulatory agency needs to adopt 

industry-developed standards 85 times, it’s kind of a red flag that 

the agency lacks the resources and expertise to develop these 

standards on its own. 

Even more outrageous, once the standards are incorporated into 

Federal taxpayer-funded regulations, they remain the property of 

the standards-setting organization. So if a citizen wants to review 

the standards in a U.S. Government regulation, they actually have 

to buy a copy from the private organization that drafted them. 

Prices for these documents, which again are part of a U.S. Government taxpayer-financed regulation, range from just below $100 to 

nearly $1,000. It is just wrong, and, of course, the expense discourages citizen review and participation in the process. 

Now, I know you share our view, Madam Chair, as do many of 

your colleagues on both sides of the aisle and Administrator 

Quarterman. We think this can easily and must be remedied in 

statute in the next reauthorization. 

Moving on, over the past year and a half, PHMSA finally started 

implementing the Community TAG Grant program authorized in 

2002. Overall, despite the unacceptably long delay in implementation, we view the first round of this new grant program generally 

as a huge success. However, ongoing funding for these grants isn’t 

clear, so the Trust asks the Committee to ensure the reauthorization of these grants, consider raising the cap on the amount of an 

individual grant, remove the limitation on funding sources for the 

grants, and, most importantly, do whatever is necessary to ensure 

funds are appropriated. 

15 

Additionally, there were mistakes made by PHMSA with awarding grants not meeting the congressional intent of the program either in terms of qualifying recipients or use of the funds. In creating the grant program, Congress explicitly excluded for-profit entities to ensure the program’s monies reached its intended audience 

of local governments and nonprofit citizen groups, not pipeline companies. Congress also specifically defined and limited the use of 

those funds to scientific analysis and promotion of public participation. 

That some municipally owned companies are trying to exploit a 

possible loophole in the law to subsidize their own operations unfairly at the expense of local governments, legitimate citizen 

groups, and competitor companies disqualified from receiving such 

funding is shameful. It is sad, but we have to ask Congress to clarify in statute that this grant program is not to fund, and it was 

never supposed to fund, the activities of any pipeline operator, public or private. 

I see my time is running out, so let me just conclude by thanking 

you again. I look forward to answering your questions, and also 

look forward to working with this Committee, both sides of the 

aisle, and Congress on the authorization. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Next. 

Mr. TAHAMTANI. Madam Chair Brown, Ranking Member Shuster, 

Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss our role in support of pipeline safety. I am testifying today on 

behalf of the National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives. NAPSR, for short, is a nonprofit organization of State pipeline safety personnel. As partners of the PHMSA, we serve to support, encourage and enhance pipeline safety in the country. 

Since the Pipeline Safety Act was signed into law in 1968, States 

have been acting as certified agents for implementing and enforcing Federal safety regulations. State pipeline safety personnel represent more than 80 percent of the State and Federal inspection 

workforce. State inspectors are the first line of defense at the community level to promote pipeline safety, underground utility damage prevention and public awareness regarding gaseous and liquid 

pipeline systems. 

In their role as inspectors, the State pipeline safety personnel 

interact with a variety of communities which may be affected by 

the pipelines of more than 3,000 operators subject to the requirements of the public awareness program regulations. 

I have submitted written testimony for the record describing the 

role of the States in helping to enhance pipeline safety and the status of our efforts in the areas of education and public awareness. 

Briefly, States have been engaged in two distinct efforts: One, 

education of the public about gas and liquid pipeline safety and 

how to prevent excavation damage to these pipelines; and two, inspection of operators’ public awareness programs, plans and results. We are also continuing to work with PHMSA in putting together inspection protocols to use in determining the effectiveness 

of these programs. 

As you know, excavation damage is the number one cause of 

pipeline accidents. With the aid of the Federal One Call and the 

State Damage Prevention grants, the States have been very active 

16 

in helping to educate those who excavate near buried pipelines and 

other facilities. These activities include promoting the 811 nationwide number to be called before any excavation. 

In my own State of Virginia, we routinely sponsor public service 

announcements about excavation damage prevention and offer 

mandatory education programs as part of the enforcement of the 

Virginia damage prevention law. In addition, we annually distribute hundreds of thousands of educational materials ranging 

from coloring books for young Virginians to safe digging manuals 

for professional excavators. 

With respect to operators’ public awareness programs and results 

thus far, the States have primarily concentrated on determining 

the adequacy of these programs. In order to evaluate if these programs are effective, States and PHMSA are putting together inspection forms and associated guidance for use by our inspectors. 

In crafting these documents, we are addressing certain issues to 

ensure effective evaluation of these programs. 

In short, we believe the requirement for pipeline operators to 

have effective public awareness program is good, and it has already 

shown some results. With our Federal partner we have mapped out 

a plan to begin verification of these plans as early as this fall. At 

this point NAPSR believes added legislative mandates in this area 

are not warranted and could create additional obstacles for operators to implement their program. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I will be glad to answer 

any questions. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Kipp. 

Mr. KIPP. I am pleased to appear before you today to represent 

the CGA, a nonprofit organization dedicated to shared responsibility and damage prevention to underground facilities. The CGA 

now counts more than 1,400 individuals, representing 16 stakeholder groups, and nearly 200 member organizations. In addition, 

our 60 regional partners total some 2,000 members covering most 

States and 6 Canadian provinces. 

On May 1st, 2007, 811 came into service across the country. 

Much of our public awareness focus has been centered on educating 

the public and excavators through the Call 811 Before You Dig 

campaign. The CGA relies almost completely on our network of 

members to implement the 811 campaign. Following are eight examples of CGA’s major activities in public awareness and education, the topic on today’s agenda. Many other initiatives are identified in the written submission provided earlier this week. 

In November 2009, the 811 logo and tagline were painted on the 

number 29 Shell race car in Homestead for the closing race of the 

2009 NASCAR series. In April of this year, Shell once again painted the tagline on the race care for the Talladega race. They were 

joined by 3M, who included the 811 logo and tagline on the number 

16 car. At no cost to the CGA, these messages generated more than 

a half-million dollars’ worth of media coverage for the 811 message. 

Beginning 5 a.m. on August 11th, 2009, more than 50 volunteers 

from Dig Safely New York, National Grid and Con Ed worked the 

rope lines of the Today Show and Early Show wearing 811 T-shirts 

on 8/11 Day. One of the volunteers was interviewed, generating a 

17 

message that, according to advertising equivalency values, would 

have cost some $50,000. 

John Deere has arranged for CGA and the 811 message to ring 

the closing bell at the New York Stock Exchange on August 20th 

of this year. 

Atmos Energy has incorporated the 811 logo on all print correspondence, which equates to millions of pieces of literature annually. 

Chevron funded the production and distribution of a radio PSA 

tailored to the 19 coastal parishes in Louisiana, reminding folks to 

please call 811 before dredging in the gulf to avoid further damage 

and potential injury. 

Williams Pipeline provided funding to the CGA to create, produce 

and distribute an 8-minute video for educating 8- to 11-year-olds on 

the dangers of digging and the treasures that lie below surface of 

the Earth. 

Colonial Pipeline painted a 30-foot-high 811 logo and the accompanying message on a holding tank along Interstate 85. Following 

their lead, Kinder Morgan, Sunoco, PSE&G of New Jersey, Williams, Shell and others have all painted the 811 logo and message 

on tanks facing highly traveled highways throughout the country. 

Ten One Call centers have pooled advertising money and contracted Joey Logano, a NASCAR driver, to record radio and television PSAs for ad distribution. Logano’s photo highlighting the 

811 message has also been incorporated into a large-scale print 

campaign. 

CGA estimates that stakeholder support of the 811 campaign provides a value of $10 million annually in advertising equivalency. 

The CGA best practices have become the standard for damageprevention practices. A number of States have adopted some or all 

of the CGA practices in their laws or rules governing excavation 

practices in their States. Per these practices, the CGA believes that 

consistent, fair and balanced State enforcement of One Call laws 

in States where no enforcement exists today has the greatest potential for helping reduce excavation damages. 

The CGA also believes the elimination of State exemptions to 

One Call laws would also help reduce damages, and together these 

two issues, if implemented, will help continue this yearly trend of 

reduced excavation damages in this country. 

In August, the CGA will publish and distribute its sixth report 

on damage data. Following is a brief summary of highlights that 

will be found in this report: 

2009 marked the fourth consecutive year that more than 100,000 

reports were voluntarily input into our system. 

It is estimated that total damages to underground infrastructure 

have gone from an estimated 450,000 in 2004 to 170,000 in 2009, 

a decrease in damages of more than 60 percent. 

It is estimated that no call made to the One Call centers were 

responsible or were a contributing factor in more than 200,000 

damages in 2004, while that number was estimated to be approximately 60,000 last year, in 2009, a decrease of 70 percent. 

We believe that the advent of 811 and public awareness programs of CGA stakeholders have had a major impact on this aspect 

of damage prevention. We still have much work to do. Thank you. 

18 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. O’Rourke. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Following Bob Kipp is not really fair to me. CGA 

is such a great organization. 

Chairwoman Brown, Ranking Member Shuster, thank you for 

having the National Association of State Fire Marshals testify before the Subcommittee today. 

The National Association of State Fire Marshals represents the 

most senior fire officials at the State level. Our membership is 

unique, however, in that many State fire marshals are, in fact, law 

enforcement personnel, giving our organization a blended fire and 

law enforcement perspective. Most of our State fire marshals, however, began their careers in the firehouse, working their way up 

the ranks, eventually achieving the highest level fire service position of the State. 

Among the many duties of the State fire marshal, one of the 

most important is incident prevention. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. As such, incident prevention is a central focus in 

all our programs, in particular for pipeline safety. 

The National Association of State Fire Marshals has been actively involved in pipeline education and safety since 2002 when we 

entered into the Partnership For Excellence in Pipeline Safety with 

U.S. DOT. The State Fire Marshals and U.S. DOT’s partnership is 

focused on many issues, including liquified national gas safety, 

pipeline high consequence areas, hazardous material safety, but 

the foundation of the partnership is a training program entitled 

Pipeline Emergencies. The Pipeline Emergencies Program offers a 

comprehensive training curriculum that covers liquid and gas pipelines, transmission and distribution line pipelines. 

The unambiguous priority of the State Fire Marshals is to ensure 

that all fire fighters, in particular volunteer fire fighters, receive 

comprehensive fire training and prevention education. To that end, 

the Pipeline Emergencies Training Program, which was developed 

in 2004, we have shipped 45,000 training packages to both public 

safety and industry personnel. U.S. DOT has paid for the cost of 

shipping that material, and there is no purchase fee to any public 

safety organization that requests a copy. 

In addition, we have trained more than 1,000 certified fire instructors in all 50 states. 

The timing of today’s hearing is quite opportune. One of the limitations of our current Pipeline Emergencies Training Program has 

been that it has been available only in a hard copy and it is disseminated through a broad network of emergency response organizations. While this has helped to ensure that the public safety community is saturated with the training program, it has limited our 

ability to measure the program. Several months ago, however, 

State Fire Marshals and U.S. DOT agreed to update the training 

curriculum and, most important, make it available in the electronic 

format. 

We are now currently exploring funding opportunities for a more 

comprehensive pipeline safety training portal. We are not facing 

electronic or technological difficulties or limitations with this portal. Well established platforms exist, and the platforms exist in 

order to develop these, deliver these education programs electronically. Some of these platforms allow for integrated and multi-modal 

19 

notification capabilities. And with these capabilities, the State Fire 

Marshals and the pipeline industry could engage in measurable 

communications with the public safety and other public officials regarding safety training, pipeline maintenance, high consequence 

areas and a myriad of other public awareness priorities. 

We currently are reviewing the feasibility of this portal approach. 

Sustained funding for a curriculum of this type is always a concern, as training cannot be switched on and off depending on the 

availability of resources. It is imperative to continue the progress 

that we have achieved through Pipeline Emergencies Training Program. In order to adequately maintain the training necessary for 

new emergency responders entering into the industry and to update the training curriculum for new procedures and hazardous 

materials, we respectfully request that your Subcommittee authorize funding for pipeline training for a multi-year period. 

The National Association of State Fire Marshals remains committed to providing pipeline safety training and awareness to the 

Nation’s emergency responders. Hearings like this are essential to 

sharpening the country’s focus on these so preventible incidents. 

Public awareness and education, as well as emergency responder 

training, are a vital component of a pipeline safety program. Our 

association and our membership stand ready to provide greater assistance to the Subcommittee, to the executive branch and to our 

State and local partners. I thank you on behalf of the National Association of State Fire Marshals for this opportunity and am happy 

to answer any questions. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I think we can get through Mr. Davis 

at least. 

Mr. Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Shusterand 

Members of the Committee, I appreciate this opportunity to testify 

before you today. 

My name is Sam Davis, and I am the general manager and CEO 

of the Lake Apopka Natural Gas District in Winter Garden, Florida. 

The Lake Apopka Natural Gas District currently operates a municipal natural gas distribution utility with over 600 miles of pipe 

infrastructure which serves a 500 square mile area within Lake 

and Orange Counties in central Florida. The district serves approximately 15,000 customers. 

I testify today on behalf of the American Public Gas Association. 

APGA is the national association for publicly owned, not-for-profit 

natural gas retail distribution systems. There are approximately 

1,000 public gas systems in 36 States. 

Public gas systems are an important part of their community. 

Our members’ employees live in their communities they serve and 

are accountable to local officials. Public gas systems are generally 

regulated by their consumer owners through locally elected governing boards or appointed officials. 

However, when it comes to pipeline safety all of our members 

must comply in the same manner as industrial-owned utilities with 

pipeline safety regulations issued by Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, which is PHMSA. For most of our 

20 

members these pipeline safety regulations are enforced by an individual State’s pipeline safety agency. 

While the manner of safety regulation may be the same, one 

major difference between the average industrial-owned utility and 

the average public gas system is size and the number of both customers served and employees. Approximately half of the 1,000 public gas systems have five employees or less. As a result, regulations 

and rules have a significantly different impact upon the small public gas system than they do upon a larger system serving hundreds 

of thousands or millions of customers with several hundreds or 

even thousands of employees. 

In addition, increased costs imposed on these local governments 

by additional regulation of their natural gas utilities can potentially cut into other services provided by the local government, including fire, police and public safety programs. 

Through a cooperative agreement with PHMSA and APGA security integrity, they assist small operators to meet their regulatory 

requirements, and we thank PHMSA for their support. 

Gas utilities are the final step in taking natural gas from the 

production field to the homeowner or business. As such, a public 

gas systems’ commitment to safety is second to none. A part of 

safety is education and public awareness. 

Even before there were Federal pipeline safety regulations, public gas systems conducted public awareness programs. Utilities add 

odorant to the gas to give it its distinctive smell so that people can 

smell a leak. Educating the public so that the public recognizes a 

gas odor and to call the utility if they smell gas is a critical component of each utility safety program. 

Another critical component is educating the public about the existence of buried gas lines in their community and the importance 

of calling the One Call center to have lines marked before digging. 

In 2006 APGA developed a multi-public awareness plan. APGA 

also conducts public awareness surveys for participating members. 

It is called the APGA Gas Overall Awareness Level, GOAL, program. And it calls a random sample of customers and noncustomers in the service territory of participating utilities. We are conducting our fourth year of surveys, even though the regulations did 

not require service to be completed until this year. 

As the Committee considers legislation to reauthorize the Pipeline Safety Act, I want to communicate our public—excuse me, our 

support for reasonable regulations to ensure that individuals who 

control the Nation’s network of distribution pipelines are provided 

the training and tools necessary to safely operate those systems. 

Over the past several years the industry had numerous additional requirements placed on it. For this reason, APGA strongly 

supports a clean reauthorization of the act. 

Should the Committee consider revisions to the act, there are a 

number of issues APGA will ask the Committee to consider. One 

of these issues I would like to bring to your attention relates to an 

expansion of the excess flow valve requirements to commercial and 

industrial businesses and multifamily residences. A commercial 

building, unlike a residential unit, may see changes in gas—may 

see huge changes in gas demand as tenants in the space move in 

21 

and out. As a result, the EFV application to these units would be 

impractical. 

PHMSA has established a working group of government, industry, and public experts to study the issues relating to installing 

large volumes, EFVs and other single residential services. We encourage Congress to allow this stakeholder working group to proceed towards making specific recommendations on this issue. Public gas systems are proud of their safety record. Safety has been 

and will continue to be our top priority. We look forward to working with the Committee on reauthorization of the Pipeline Safety 

Act. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

What we are going to do is stand in informal recess. We have 

three votes, and we will be back as soon as the last vote is over. 

Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. The Committee will officially come back 

to order. 

Mr. Lidiak, we left off with you. Thank you. 

Mr. LIDIAK. Good afternoon Chairwoman Brown, Ranking Member Shuster and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to testify on pipeline public awareness and education programs. 

I am Peter Lidiak, the pipeline director for the American Petroleum Institute. My comments today are being presented on behalf 

of API and AOPL, the Association of Oil Pipelines. Together our 

members operate 85 percent of the liquid pipeline miles in the 

United States. 

Public awareness programs are tools for pipeline operators to get 

information about pipelines into the hands of the public, excavators, public officials and first responders, among others. This includes information about activities that are and are not appropriate 

around pipelines and what to do in the event of a pipeline emergency. 

Pipeline operators have conducted some type of public awareness 

programs for 20 years. Over time, pipeline operators have developed and shared practices to improve their programs. In 2003, a 

consensus standard establishing a common framework for public 

awareness programs, API Recommended Practice 1162, was published. And in May 2005, the Office of Pipeline Safety incorporated 

RP 1162 by reference into its regulations, thereby requiring liquid 

and natural gas operators to follow these practices. 

When the first edition of RP 1162 was being drafted, the goal 

was to craft a public awareness framework and provide practices 

that were clear, reasonable and practical, so that pipeline safety 

was enhanced. That meant clarifying what public awareness actually means; determining the techniques and logistics for achieving 

it; and then measuring for effectiveness. And it meant taking on 

this task for the hundreds of pipeline operators and many millions 

of people who live or work along the hundreds of thousands of 

miles of pipelines that run across our Nation. 

Many stakeholders were involved in developing RP 1162, including industry, members of the public, State regulators, and the OfVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:15 Dec 22, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\57561.0 KAYLA
22 

fice of Pipeline Safety. We gathered input and received on drafts 

and used that feedback. 

Communicating safety awareness about anything is hard: Not 

using a cell phone while driving; wearing a seat belt; the dangers 

of exceeding the speed limit. Each and every day people are barraged with messages and information. Sometimes people don’t 

want to take the time to listen or don’t have enough interest, even 

though we think they should. It is little wonder that pipeline operators sometimes struggle to communicate about pipeline safety in 

our communities. 

Much has been done to enhance public awareness since the first 

edition of RP 1162 came out, and much has been learned. We are 

continually finding new and more effective ways to reach out to key 

audiences about pipeline safety. Our pipeline public awareness programs are more effective when we can engage in two-way communication with our key audiences. 

As part of our efforts we will make RP 1162 better, as we are 

now doing with a new edition that we expect to come out later this 

year. The proposed revisions for the second edition of RP 1162 are 

expected to address some of the challenges that operators face, increase the effectiveness of operator public awareness programs, and 

address a recommendation from the National Transportation Safety Board to identify 911 emergency call centers explicitly as part 

of the target audience for public awareness programs. 

Another key element of our public education programs is getting 

excavators to use One Call systems before they dig and the public 

to report unauthorized excavation. The industry has strongly funded and participated in the Common Ground Alliance since its inception to promote best practices in excavation and marking 

around underground facilities. And we supported the rollout of the 

national 811 Call Before You Dig campaign. 

We also support strong State damage prevention laws that call 

for states to eliminate all exemptions from those laws. This would 

remove a significant safety gap because excavation damage is a 

problem, regardless of who the excavator is. Public awareness programs need to continually evolve to meet the challenges of communicating with the public, excavators and officials. However, our objective should remain the same: Preventing damage and promoting 

safety awareness. 

Revisions to the statute regarding public awareness programs 

are unnecessary. Rather than focusing on factors like public behavior changes, which are nearly impossible to quantify, we believe operators need the flexibility to build and innovatively shape their 

programs to meet our mutual goal of promoting safety awareness. 

In order to provide maximum protection to the public from excavation damage, we strongly urge that all exemptions from State 

One Call requirements be eliminated. And when the revised edition 

of API 1162 is published, we strongly encourage OPS to adopt it 

as a needed update to the pipeline public awareness requirements. 

This concludes my prepared remarks, and I would be happy to 

answer any questions that Members of the Subcommittee may 

have. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. I think I will start with you 

Mr. Lidiak. 

23 

Following the 2007 pipeline incident in Mississippi, the NTSB 

made some safety recommendations to the American Petroleum Institute to revise API 1162 to identify 911 emergency call centers as 

emergency response agencies to be included in outreach programs 

under a pipeline operators public education program. What has 

API done to address this issue as far as NTSB recommendations? 

Mr. LIDIAK. Chairwoman Brown, API has in the draft RP included 911 call centers, explicitly identified them, and those will be 

published in the final version. And we have informed NTSB of that 

action, and they have marked the action as ongoing and acceptable. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. The recommendation was made in 2007? 

Mr. LIDIAK. Yes. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. What year is this? 

Mr. LIDIAK. This is 2010. And this is the time period in which 

we would be reviewing the RP, and it has been under revision for 

the last 2 years. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. So when will it be implemented? It is 

being implemented as we speak or you are planning on implementing it? 

Mr. LIDIAK. The RP is due to be balloted some time within the 

next couple of months. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Would you explain the process to me? 

I guess I don’t understand. 

Mr. LIDIAK. When we review a standard, the working group will 

look at things that require changes, and they will work on it over 

time to make those revisions. 

And then, at the end of the process, we will put it out for comment. We will collect comments, respond to them, and then ballot 

the final document. And if it passes the ballot, it goes into effect. 

And if it doesn’t pass, then we go back and make further changes 

and then reballot it. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. So you all do not have to implement 

these recommendations? 

Mr. LIDIAK. We are under no legal obligation to because NTSB 

is not a regulatory body, but we always take NTSB recommendations seriously, and we try to address them when we are making 

revisions to our standards documents. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. OK. 

Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

The first question, Mr. Kipp, what can Congress do to help your 

alliance promote the efforts that you do for the 811 calling? 

Mr. KIPP. We receive a cooperative grant of $500,000 per year. 

An extension of that would be terrific. 

As per the testimony, this year our budget takes that $500,000 

into account as well as $1.2 million from the industry, and with 

that $1.7 million, we operate the CGA. 

A continuation of that grant would be great. It really enables us 

to develop material that the industry can use and at the same time 

continue building robustness into our damage information reporting tool, which is a tool that those 100,000 damages are submitted 

to, and we publish that report annually. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

24 

Also, in regards to the exemption, it is an issue that I still can’t 

comprehend. I am not a big proponent of the Federal Government 

doing sweeping laws that say, you must do this, because my concern is down the road, as laws tend to evolve or devolve, whichever 

the case may be, any time someone sticks a spade shovel in the 

ground, they will be required to call. 

So can you talk to me, what is your view on the exemptions in 

some of the States? 

And after that, I want to talk to Mr. Tahamtani and ask your 

view on that from your States. 

Mr. KIPP. We recently passed the best practice. And I am sure 

you are aware of the process. But every one of our best practices 

must be agreed to by everybody and everyone in the CGA, all 16 

stakeholder groups. And the practice took 8 years to get through. 

But, basically, we are in favor of mandatory participation with 

a very few slight exemptions. An example, if you own the property, 

there is no public thoroughfare nearby, you are digging on your 

own property, you have your own facility, you know where it is— 

an example, a railroad right of way—then fine, go ahead and dig 

on your property, you know where it is, you know there is no danger. And that would be just about the only exemption that we are 

in favor of. 

Mr. SHUSTER. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Tahamtani. 

Mr. TAHAMTANI. With regard to exemptions, I think it is very 

easy to say that we should have no exemptions. 

Virginia law was changed dramatically back in 1995, and we 

have a number of exemptions. For example, not all lines can be located. Even if you call, the utility can’t find them because they 

were put in years ago; they don’t have a tracing wire, for example. 

We have an exemption that says if there is a call for excavation 

and the utility can’t find its own facility, they should be able to 

hand dig and find it. 

So you have to be very careful not to say no exemption. 

In Virginia, every exemption that we have is backed by data, by 

experience. I will give you a quick example. Back in 1995, when we 

tried to remove the Virginia DOT from that exemption, they appeared before our General Assembly and said, if you do this, the 

taxpayers have to bear about $11 million a year for us to dig in 

our own right of way, we know what we have in the right of way; 

15 years later I don’t have the data to show that they should not 

have that exemption. So some exemptions do make sense; some 

don’t. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And what, if they had to call up, what would it 

cost the taxpayers of Virginia, did you say, $11 million or more 

than that? 

Mr. TAHAMTANI. Well, when VDOT, in this case, is digging on 

their right of way, if they make a call, they have to now mark all 

of their facilities, and other utilities have to mark their facilities, 

and as a result of all of that, you have got an expense that keeps 

on going up. 

Now, no one confirmed the $11 million, but we went on record 

to say that if damage data proved that our DOT employees were 

25 

causing problems, we would be coming back. Again, 15 years later, 

they are in the 1 percentile range in terms of damages. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

And Mr. Lidiak, if I could, my colleague from New York, on a 

couple of occasions, and I think other colleagues of mine have 

talked about API’s recommended practices, making them free to everybody. Can you explain to us why they are not free? The administrator has talked a little bit about it, but if you could. 

Mr. LIDIAK. I would be happy to, Mr. Shuster. 

API charges for its standards, as do all standards organizations. 

These fees cover the costs of publication and the staffing needed to 

manage those publications. 

API manages 500 standards at the current time, give or take, 

and it requires a lot of oversight. And that is how we recoup the 

fee. It is part of our business that is a self-supporting part of our 

association’s work. 

Mr. SHUSTER. And so, if Congress forced you to do them for free, 

it would be a taking. There would be a constitutional—a legal question there. 

Mr. LIDIAK. I am not a lawyer. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Right. But that would be my guess, it would be a 

pretty—you know, taking somebody’s proprietary information that 

they paid to staff and research it, so, OK. That is what I thought. 

And I think that the administrator let us know that at some point 

that that seemed to be the case. I appreciate it. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

Mr. Kessler, you stated that the Pipeline Safety Trust believes 

that communities should feel safe and when pipelines run through 

them, the trust of the government, everything should be proactive, 

and I agree to all of this. What is missing? What else do you think 

we need to be doing? 

Mr. KESSLER. Well, Madam Chairman, I think generally there is 

very—it is very difficult for citizens to get access to a lot of this 

information, as my testimony said. And to participate, particularly 

in the industry standard development, it’s not something that most 

citizens, it is not like a government rulemaking where there is a 

Federal Register notice, that there are potentially meetings around 

the country: it’s notices to members of that organization. I am sure 

they would welcome if we asked to participate, but I don’t know 

that invitations get sent out to groups like ours or other groups 

around the country or even local governments to participate all occasions. 

So it is a very different process than the Federal Government 

would undergo. So I think that is one particular area. I think access to more data about individual pipelines being available so people can know what is actually, that these inspections have been 

performed, what has been found, what has been remedied; I think 

that makes people feel safer when they can actually see this, rather than having to rely on an interested party with a for-profit motive telling them, don’t worry about it, everything is safe or a regulator, who, while getting better, doesn’t have the greatest history 

with the public or with this Congress in terms of its credibility on 

these matters. So, generally more information is better. 

26 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I agree. 

And there is a system that one of the things that I know that 

we will be addressing, because even when the government wants 

certain information, they have to pay for it or if someone—I mean, 

that is the craziest thing I ever heard. That will be one of the 

things that is going to be addressed. 

Mr. KESSLER. One thing I would suggest, that as a condition of 

including these industry standards in a rulemaking array, then 

they are required to turn it over for free; otherwise the government 

will have to develop its own standards and will have to find a way 

of raising the money. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Well, you know Ronald Reagan said 

trust but verify. 

Mr. KESSLER. Right. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. So it should be an independent, or the 

government at least publishing the standards and verifying that 

they are accurate, I will tell you anything. 

Mr. KESSLER. I think that is right. I feel like, when we put 

things into the record of this Committee or of the House and the 

Senate, we introduce all sorts of public information or privately 

produced information into the record to make it publicly available. 

I really think it would be—and I am not averse to compensating 

the industry either, reasonably, but I think there really needs to 

be a condition that if we are going to use these standards, then the 

condition on the industry is—and I am not advocating using these 

standards, but if we are going to do it, then the industry has to 

make it available, basically turn it over to the government for publication at whatever, whether it is free or some level of compensation. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I just really believe there should be 

some independent verification. 

Mr. KESSLER. Yeah. 

And the API public awareness document can’t be, even as early 

as, you know, as recently as today, you can’t get that off the Web 

site. Well, it was available, and it was available in a way that you 

can’t print it. So it makes it very hard to go through such a big 

document when you can’t print it out. I know I do a lot of my research still on paper. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Well, I mean, I understand, when we 

want it, we have to pay for it, so there is a major problem there 

that will be addressed. 

But I can’t say I was around in 2002 and you were around in 

2002 when they came up with some recommendations prohibiting 

the user fees to fund the programs. Do you know why? 

Mr. KESSLER. Sure. The program was developed primarily Mr. 

Boucher from Virginia—— 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. I didn’t hear you. 

Mr. KESSLER. Mr. Boucher from Virginia was the primary, and 

Mr. Dingell. And what it was, the program was developed as a 

compromise on public information right to know between Republicans and Democrats. And it was a good compromise. It allowed 

citizens a way to get more information. 

But it was designed, based upon the EPA Technical Assistance 

Grants under Superfund, which this Committee is familiar with, 

27 

and really is designed to go to community groups and even local 

governments. And the reason the word for-profit, excluding forprofit entities, that was, in drafting it, the specific meaning of forprofit was pipelines. It was, you know, leg counsel, and we never 

thought that we needed to specifically say the word pipeline operators or companies. For-profit seemed to cover it. 

But it clearly was meant for these local governments and citizen 

groups. And then, furthermore, the restrictions, not all of which I 

would love to see continued, but they are there in law and passed 

overwhelmingly by this Committee and the House and the Senate, 

and they state that the money is to be used for scientific analysis, 

data gathering. And this is something I think the industry was 

very interested in. It is really to be for hiring technical experts, engineers, for assessing data, but also for some public participation 

where the public, helping fund the public go to these things, like 

the API processes or government processes. They are not supposed 

to be used for lobbying, and they are not supposed to be used for 

acquiring physical equipment. It is a small amount of money. That 

is a lot of reason to—— 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. The grant caps $50,000. Do you want 

to speak to that? And really, the amount of the total program, 

probably, she said $1 million? 

Mr. KESSLER. It is $1 million per year, I believe. The $50,000 

number the members drew from the existing Superfund program, 

which is structured so that a $50,000 grant is awarded, but you 

can continue to award, build upon that award over time. The problem is that you can’t find an engineer anymore and hire a firm for 

$50,000, and so it becomes not as useful, the amount, as I think 

members thought it was back then. So it would be useful to raise 

that cap. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. And I think, you know, also, not just the 

cap, but the amount of communities that can participate. I mean, 

critical areas, I mean, should be addressed. 

Mr. KESSLER. Right. The communities, this hasn’t been well publicized. And as you know, and I referenced in my testimony, it took 

many years. It took in fact a second reauthorization, the 2006 

Pipes Act, to really get PHMSA to act on moving this. I know there 

are a number of members who personally were very upset and expressed it to previous administrators over the duration of how long 

it took to roll out the program. 

And now that it is rolled out, I think there is a real issue with 

how well it is being publicized, which I think PHMSA agrees with, 

and that we need to really make an effort to let communities know 

that they are able to avail themselves of these funds. And I think 

it will result in a more informed public. I think it is kind of the 

Alfred Hitchcock thing; you fear the things you don’t see or you 

don’t know more than when you have the information and you 

know what you are dealing with. And I think many things that 

communities fear, once they have an independent verification of 

maybe what the pipeline company or PHMSA is saying, will feel 

much more comfortable, and it will make life easier for pipelines, 

too. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

28 

Mr. Kipp, in your written testimony, you stated that the Common Ground Alliance believes that consistent fair and balanced 

State enforcement of One Call laws in States where no enforcement 

exists today have the greatest potential for helping reduce dangers. 

What States that enforces these laws without impacting their already tight budget, expense budget, can you please elaborate on 

this? Specifically, what areas where no enforcement exists? 

Mr. KIPP. Well, one of the States—there are a number of States 

who do enforce it, but a good model is the one right next to me. 

Massoud Tahamtani in Virginia, they have a model that has been 

in existence since 1996. And they reduced their damages, if I recall 

the number, Massoud, from 4.59 damages per thousand tickets in 

1996 to somewhere under 2 right now, if I am not mistaken—1.5. 

There are a number of States that have either no enforcement 

whatsoever or enforcement that has been assigned to, for instance, 

the State police. In one of the states I know of, they don’t have 

time to enforce; they won’t do it. And such, there is really no great 

improvement as a result of their laws. 

You really see a difference in States like Georgia, Virginia, 

Maine and other States where they have a variety of types of enforcement, fair and balanced enforcement. And that is critical. 

A lot of States are looking right now at enforcing the laws only 

when a contractor doesn’t do what he should do. Massoud will tell 

you that, in Virginia, they have a system where everyone has 

steps, everyone follows those steps, and whether it is the contractor 

who doesn’t call or the locator that doesn’t mark or mismarks, they 

are looked at and fined appropriately or accordingly or educated if 

need be to ensure that there is no recurrence of this. And that is 

how he has been able to get his damages down to some pretty outstanding levels. Some of the other States I am familiar with have 

numbers in the 4 or 5 or 6 damages per thousand tickets, 3 and 

4 times what Massoud has. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Can you give us a—do we have a comprehensive report on each of the States and the status? 

Mr. KIPP. There is no report by State as such. The numbers I am 

giving you—I know Massoud has his by State. Some other States 

will have some numbers. Like Colorado, they have mandatory publication of all damages, not only for gas and petroleum but for all 

infrastructure. And they have a good report, and that could be provided. The numbers I am giving you are mostly generated from discussions that I have with, confidential discussions, frankly, that I 

have with gas operators and petroleum operators who will tell me 

what they are running and are looking to improve but are not looking to necessarily have a burden of fines on their system. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Maybe that is one of the things that we 

need to look into in a comprehensive study of each State and where 

we stand. 

Mr. KIPP. Yes. Texas has another system that they just rolled out 

I believe 2years ago, the Railroad Commission. And it is very different than what they have in Virginia, but it seems to be working. 

We will see. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Mr. Tahamtani, can you just give us 

some of what you all have done to bring down your incidence and 

what recommendations that you would add? 

29 

Mr. TAHAMTANI. Sure. Just a brief history. It was back in 1993 

where a pipeline ruptured not far from here in Reston, Virginia, 

and dumped about 400,000 gallons of oil in the Potomac River. As 

a result of that, we got letters and calls from some Members of 

Congress here and from the Secretary of Transportation. So we 

brought a bunch of people together; excavators, locators, utilities, 

everybody who had something to do with this process, and we 

wrote our law. 

And a couple of things that we did was—one was enforcement. 

Because obviously, even the best laws won’t probably work by 

themselves. And in that, we felt that instead of the government enforcing it, we needed an expert body of people, contractors, utilities, 

locators, Miss Utility, all those entities that have a hand in the 

process, to look at every single damage. 

In Virginia, every single pipeline damage must be reported to us 

and must be investigated. And so that enforcement plus investigation of every single report has really been one element that has 

made the program work. 

The other piece is that, in Virginia at least, all the fines go to public education. So that has been about $1 million just going back 

to the public on public education. And if you add all the money that 

the Virginia operators, pipeline operators, and others spend, we 

have got about a $7 million public education program in the State. 

We also made a number of changes in our law that have made 

it easier for the contractors and the utilities to talk to each other. 

And I mean, when they put a mark down they, designate whose 

mark it is. We have also said that if you get out there to dig and 

that mark doesn’t make any sense to you, you cannot dig, you have 

to call back and wait 3 hours. So there are a number of these 

things that have made us, made our program work to the point 

that, Bob mentioned, about 65 percent decrease in pipeline damages since 1996. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Does the State of Virginia exempt itself 

from the 811 requirements, does it ever? 

Mr. TAHAMTANI. We have a number of exemptions. I mentioned 

earlier that all of these are based on data, and the data still supports those exemptions. 

However, there are some exemptions that we had back in 1996 

that we removed them with some fight, and they have worked to, 

again, support the program pretty well. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Thank you. 

Mr. Davis, I understand that Lake Apopka received a $50,000 

grant from DOT under the Community Technical Assistance Grant 

Program. What are you all doing with the grant, and what is your 

experience with PHMSA on the grant process? 

Mr. DAVIS. Madam Chair, yes, Lake Apopka was a recipient of 

one of the $50,000 grants. Lake Apopka applied for this grant 

based on criteria released in the Federal Register, Volume 73216, 

dated November 6, 2008. There were criteria in that release that 

we were in compliance with. There was also a press release issued 

by DOT on September 17, 2009, announcing the grant awards and 

stating examples of acceptable projects for that grant. As such, 

Lake Apopka Natural Gas is currently using the grant toward the 

initial development of a GIS information system. That system, 

30 

when complete, will help in enhancing our pipeline monitoring capabilities and public awareness campaigns to promote the sharing 

of information between our pipelines and other natural gas pipelines in the areas and land owners as well. 

So the grant has been very, very useful. Our experience with 

PHMSA has been very good, and to my knowledge, we haven’t had 

any issues come to my attention because of that. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. How are you all using the grant? 

Mr. DAVIS. We are implementing, currently implementing the 

formation of a GIS system, Geographical Information System, for 

monitoring purposes. We are just implementing it. We had none. 

The district needed one. We didn’t have too many funds for that, 

so we applied for the grant to get some assistance in that. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. So are you working with the city council 

or county? 

Mr. DAVIS. No. Actually, we have a consultant that we are working were with in helping us begin that. We are a district so, we 

don’t belong to any particular city council. I do provide services to 

nine municipal systems in my district, but I report to a five member board that these board members are made up of council folks 

within the districts and the cities that I serve. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Isn’t Apopka part of Orange County? 

Mr. DAVIS. Yes, we are. We serve all of Lake and Orange County. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. So have you all talked with the council, 

the county commissioners? 

Mr. DAVIS. No, we haven’t. Actually, I hadn’t had any discussion 

with any county commissioners. Mostly our system is located in 

West Orange County, but I do have conversations and contact with 

the various mayors of each of the cities that we serve. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. OK. 

Last question, Mr. Lidiak, is there anything that prevents 

PHMSA from just issuing its own standards and not simply adopting the API standards? 

Mr. LIDIAK. Could you repeat the question? I don’t think I understand. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Back to Mr. Shuster’s question on 

standards. PHMSA adopts your all standards, and the question is 

whether or not they could issue their own standards? Is there anything that will stop them from issuing their own standards? 

Mr. LIDIAK. There is nothing that would stop them from issuing 

their own standards. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Well, I understand we don’t want to duplicate services, but do you think there is a need to be independent? 

Mr. LIDIAK. I believe that PHMSA is independent. I believe that 

they evaluate whether they are going to use the standards that are 

required under the National Technology Transfer Advancement 

Act, and they make appropriate use of standards when they see 

that they fit their need. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Well, I guess my question that I asked 

earlier, and this is the second or third time it has come up during 

the hearing, is that everything is not made available to the public. 

For example, if I wanted some information, I would have to pay for 

it. And that I have a problem with. 

31 

Mr. LIDIAK. As was the case with 1162, we made a decision with 

that standard to make it available on our Web site in a nonprintable form, as Mr. Kessler indicated. We thought that protected our 

copyright worldwide and still gave the public access to the document. 

And certainly, with this document, we would consider doing that 

in the future as we work with PHMSA. 

Because of the model that we use and other standards organizations use, it would be difficult to do that for all of our standards. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Well, that is an issue that we are going 

to continue to work through and see if we can come up with some 

answer that will better satisfy me anyway. 

Yes, sir, Mr. Kessler. 

Mr. KESSLER. Madam Chair, I just want to comment real quickly, following up on your question. PHMSA, there is nothing that 

stops PHMSA from doing just what you said, aside from lack of 

budget, which I think is important, that they have their budget. 

And as I said in my testimony, it also points to a lack of expertise 

that I think should be of concern to the members, that the regulator doesn’t have the expertise to regulate its community. So I just 

want to say that maybe there needs to be some thought about how 

this regulator performs its duties and whether it has the abilities 

and the resources it needs to do that. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Absolutely. That is what I am thinking 

about as we move forward; how we can better work together to 

make sure that we are doing what we need to do as a Member of 

Congress to protect the public? 

Mr. KESSLER. And we certainly appreciate that, Madam Chairman, the work that you are doing, Chairman Oberstar, Mr. Shuster 

and others. 

Ms. BROWN OF FLORIDA. Are there any closing comments that 

any of the panelists would like to make? 

I have a couple of additional questions that we will submit to you 

in writing. And with that, I want to thank the witnesses for their 

testimony and the Members for their questions. 

Again, the Members of this Subcommittee may have additional 

questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to them 

in writing. I have some already. 

The hearing record will be held open for 14 days for Members 

wishing to make additional statements or any further questions. 

Unless there is further business, the Subcommittee is adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 5:02 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

32 


Insert offset folio 9 here 57561.009
33 


Insert offset folio 10 here 57561.010
34 


Insert offset folio 11 here 57561.011
35 


Insert offset folio 12 here 57561.012
36 


Insert offset folio 13 here 57561.013
37 


Insert offset folio 14 here 57561.014
38 


Insert offset folio 15 here 57561.015
39 


Insert offset folio 16 here 57561.016
40 


Insert offset folio 17 here 57561.017
41 


Insert offset folio 18 here 57561.018
42 


Insert offset folio 19 here 57561.019
43 


Insert offset folio 20 here 57561.020
44 


Insert offset folio 21 here 57561.021
45 


Insert offset folio 22 here 57561.022
46 


Insert offset folio 23 here 57561.023
47 


Insert offset folio 24 here 57561.024
48 


Insert offset folio 25 here 57561.025
49 


Insert offset folio 26 here 57561.026
50 


Insert offset folio 27 here 57561.027
51 


Insert offset folio 28 here 57561.028
52 


Insert offset folio 29 here 57561.029
53 


Insert offset folio 30 here 57561.030
54 


Insert offset folio 31 here 57561.031
55 


Insert offset folio 32 here 57561.032
56 


Insert offset folio 33 here 57561.033
57 


Insert offset folio 34 here 57561.034
58 


Insert offset folio 35 here 57561.035
59 


Insert offset folio 36 here 57561.036
60 


Insert offset folio 37 here 57561.037
61 


Insert offset folio 38 here 57561.038
62 


Insert offset folio 39 here 57561.039
63 


Insert offset folio 40 here 57561.040
64 


Insert offset folio 41 here 57561.041
65 


Insert offset folio 42 here 57561.042
66 


Insert offset folio 43 here 57561.043
67 


Insert offset folio 44 here 57561.044
68 


Insert offset folio 45 here 57561.045
69 


Insert offset folio 46 here 57561.046
70 


Insert offset folio 47 here 57561.047
71 


Insert offset folio 48 here 57561.048
72 


Insert offset folio 49 here 57561.049
73 


Insert offset folio 50 here 57561.050
74 


Insert offset folio 51 here 57561.051
75 


Insert offset folio 52 here 57561.052
76 


Insert offset folio 53 here 57561.053
77 


Insert offset folio 54 here 57561.054
78 


Insert offset folio 55 here 57561.055
79 


Insert offset folio 56 here 57561.056
80 


Insert offset folio 57 here 57561.057
81 


Insert offset folio 58 here 57561.058
82 


Insert offset folio 59 here 57561.059
83 


Insert offset folio 60 here 57561.060
84 


Insert offset folio 61 here 57561.061
85 


Insert offset folio 62 here 57561.062
86 


Insert offset folio 63 here 57561.063
87 


Insert offset folio 64 here 57561.064
88 


Insert offset folio 65 here 57561.065
89 


Insert offset folio 66 here 57561.066
90 


Insert offset folio 67 here 57561.067
91 


Insert offset folio 68 here 57561.068
92 


Insert offset folio 69 here 57561.069
93 


Insert offset folio 70 here 57561.070
94 


Insert offset folio 71 here 57561.071
95 


Insert offset folio 72 here 57561.072
96 


Insert offset folio 73 here 57561.073
97 


Insert offset folio 74 here 57561.074
98 


Insert offset folio 75 here 57561.075
99 


Insert offset folio 76 here 57561.076
100 


Insert offset folio 77 here 57561.077
101 


Insert offset folio 78 here 57561.078
102 


Insert offset folio 79 here 57561.079
103 


Insert offset folio 80 here 57561.080
104 


Insert offset folio 81 here 57561.081
105 


Insert offset folio 82 here 57561.082
106 


Insert offset folio 83 here 57561.083
107 


Insert offset folio 84 here 57561.084
108 


Insert offset folio 85 here 57561.085
109 


Insert offset folio 86 here 57561.086
110 


Insert offset folio 87 here 57561.087
111 


Insert offset folio 88 here 57561.088
112 


Insert offset folio 89 here 57561.089
113 


Insert offset folio 90 here 57561.090
114 


Insert offset folio 91 here 57561.091
115 


Insert offset folio 92 here 57561.092
116 


Insert offset folio 93 here 57561.093
117 


Insert offset folio 94 here 57561.094
118 


Insert offset folio 95 here 57561.095
119 


Insert offset folio 96 here 57561.096
120 


Insert offset folio 97 here 57561.097
121 


Insert offset folio 98 here 57561.098
122 


Insert offset folio 99 here 57561.099
123 


Insert offset folio 100 here 57561.100
124 


Insert offset folio 101 here 57561.101
125 


Insert offset folio 102 here 57561.102
126 


Insert offset folio 103 here 57561.103
127 


Insert offset folio 104 here 57561.104
128 


Insert offset folio 105 here 57561.105
129 


Insert offset folio 106 here 57561.106
130 


Insert offset folio 107 here 57561.107
131 


Insert offset folio 108 here 57561.108
132 


Insert offset folio 109 here 57561.109
133 


Insert offset folio 110 here 57561.110
134 


Insert offset folio 111 here 57561.111
135 


Insert offset folio 112 here 57561.112
136 


Insert offset folio 113 here 57561.113
137 


Insert offset folio 114 here 57561.114
138 


Insert offset folio 115 here 57561.115
139 


Insert offset folio 116 here 57561.116
140 


Insert offset folio 117 here 57561.117
141 


Insert offset folio 118 here 57561.118
142 


Insert offset folio 119 here 57561.119
143 


Insert offset folio 120 here 57561.120
144 


Insert offset folio 121 here 57561.121
145 


Insert offset folio 122 here 57561.122
146 


Insert offset folio 123 here 57561.123
147 


Insert offset folio 124 here 57561.124
148 


Insert offset folio 125 here 57561.125
149 


Insert offset folio 126 here 57561.126
150 


Insert offset folio 127 here 57561.127
151 


Insert offset folio 128 here 57561.128
152 


Insert offset folio 129 here 57561.129
153 


Insert offset folio 130 here 57561.130
154 


Insert offset folio 131 here 57561.131
155 


Insert offset folio 132 here 57561.132
156 


Insert offset folio 133 here 57561.133
157 


Insert offset folio 134 here 57561.134
158 


Insert offset folio 135 here 57561.135
159 


Insert offset folio 136 here 57561.136
160 


Insert offset folio 137 here 57561.137
161 


Insert offset folio 138 here 57561.138
162 


Insert offset folio 139 here 57561.139
163 


Insert offset folio 140 here 57561.140
164 


Insert offset folio 141 here 57561.141
165 

Æ 


Insert offset folio 142 here 57561.142