U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

20–150 2017

LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO EXAMINE PIPELINE 

SAFETY REAUTHORIZATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 1, 2016 

Serial No. 114–121 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Vice Chairman 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8 

WITNESSES

Marie Therese Dominguez, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration .......................................................................................... 9 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 162 

Norman J. Saari, Commissioner, Michigan Public Service Commission (on 

behalf of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners) ...... 51 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

Ron Bradley, Vice President of Gas Operations, Peco Energy (on behalf of 

the American Gas Association) ........................................................................... 72 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 74 

Andrew Black, President and CEO, Association of Oil Pipe Lines ..................... 100 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 102 

Donald Santa, President and CEO, Interstate Natural Gas Association of 

America ................................................................................................................. 111 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 113 

Carl Weimer, Executive Director, Pipeline Safety Trust ..................................... 121 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 123 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 169 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Letter of February 29, 2016, from Ms. Capps to the Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration ........................................................................ 151 

Statement of the American Public Gas Association .............................................. 154 

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO EXAMINE 

PIPELINE SAFETY REAUTHORIZATION 

TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2016 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in room 

2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Olson, Shimkus, 

Latta, Harper, McKinley, Griffith, Johnson, Long, Mullin, Hudson, 

Upton (ex officio), Rush, McNerney, Tonko, Capps, Doyle, Yarmuth, 

Loebsack, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Staff present: Gary Andres, Staff Director; Will Batson, Legislative Clerk, E&P, E&E; Leighton Brown, Deputy Press Secretary; 

Allison Busbee, Policy Coordinator, Energy & Power; Tom 

Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy & Power; A.T. Johnston, 

Senior Policy Advisor; Brandon Mooney, Prof. Staff Member, E&P; 

Annelise Rickert, Legislative Associate; Chris Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment & Economy; Dan Schneider, Press Secretary; 

Christine Brennan, Minority Press Secretary; Jeff Carroll, Minority 

Staff Director; Rick Kessler, Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and Environment; John Marshall, Minority Policy 

Coordinator; Alexander Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst; Andrew 

Souvall, Minority Director of Communications, Outreach and Member Services; and Tuley Wright, Minority Energy and Environment 

Policy Advisor. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Good morning and I would like to call our hearing to order this morning. And I would like to recognize myself for 

a 5 minute opening statement. 

First of all, I want to thank all of our witnesses today. We have 

two panels of witnesses and I certainly want to thank Administrator Dominguez for her constructive comments and her commitment to work with our committee. 

This morning we are going to be examining a discussion draft of 

a bill that reauthorizes the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration pipeline safety program. This discussion draft 

contains targeted mandates for PHMSA to increase transparency 

2 

and accountability, complete overview regulations, and improve 

safety. 

I might say that working with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the House successfully ushered through the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 on 

a bipartisan basis. Now it is time to update that law. With today’s 

changing energy landscape and the need to modernize infrastructure greater than ever, we are looking forward to a productive discussion on our draft bill with a goal of reporting to the full House 

the legislation by this spring for its consideration. Our Senate colleagues, I might say, on the Commerce, Science and Transportation 

Committee reported S. 2276 the SAFE PIPES Act on December 9, 

2015, and we believe that a strong, bipartisan, bicameral effort will 

yield a public law we can all be proud of. 

I might say that I want to point out the unfinished business from 

the last reauthorization. The 2011 pipeline safety law included 42 

mandates on PHMSA and 16 of them remain incomplete, well beyond the statutorily-imposed deadlines. So our discussion draft will 

require the Administrator to prioritize overdue regulations ahead 

of new rulemakings and keep us updated on that progress. 

So I really look forward to our discussion this morning. And at 

this point, I would like to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD

I am pleased that we are at the point of having a legislative hearing on pipeline 

safety reauthorization. I want to thank all of our witnesses for their time and 

thoughtful comments. In particular, I want to thank Administrator Dominguez for 

her constructive comments and her commitment to work with our committee. 

The Energy and Commerce Committee has been at the forefront of improving 

pipeline safety. Members today will examine a discussion draft of a bill that reauthorizes the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s (PHMSA) 

pipeline safety program. The discussion draft contains targeted mandates for 

PHMSA to increase transparency and accountability, complete overdue regulations, 

and improve safety. 

This committee has a proud, longstanding tradition of working together when it 

comes to pipeline safety. Together with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the House successfully ushered through the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation Act of 2011 on a bipartisan basis. Now it’s time to update 

that law. With today’s changing energy landscape and the need to modernize infrastructure greater than ever, we are looking forward to a productive discussion on 

our draft bill that allows this committee to move expeditiously, so we can report a 

bill to the full House this spring for its consideration. Our Senate colleagues on the 

Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee reported S 2276, the Safe PIPES 

Act on December 9, 2015. We believe that a strong bipartisan-bicameral effort will 

yield a public law we can all be proud of. 

I do need to point out the unfinished business from the last reauthorization. The 

2011 Pipeline Safety law included 42 mandates of PHMSA and 16 of them remain 

incomplete well beyond the statutorily imposed deadlines. Our discussion draft requires the Administrator to prioritize overdue regulations ahead of new rulemakings 

and keep us updated on their progress. To make sure we are not being too rigid, 

exceptions are allowed when there is a significant need for a new regulation. 

Another provision of the draft bill that has received strong support is section 6, 

which would require the Secretary of Transportation, no later than 30 days after 

the completion of a pipeline inspection, to conduct a post-inspection briefing with 

the operator outlining any concerns. This provision will ensure that un-safe conditions are corrected as quickly as possible. 

3 

The draft legislation before us today also contains requirements for new safety 

regulations relating to underground gas storage facilities and underwater hazardous 

liquid pipeline facilities and response plans. 

This is just a preview of some of the provisions reflected in the draft before us 

today. I look forward to a robust discussion about the lessons learned from the past 

and ways to prepare for the future. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. Pipeline safety is bipartisan. I am a pro-energy, pro-growth congressman from the pro-growth, pro-energy city of Houston, Texas. But 

growth only happens if the people trust us, if we get safety right. 

Industry does its best but government must do its part, too. Sensible rules need to be written and effectively enforced. Mistakes 

cost lives. Inaction costs lives. And that is why I would like to 

thank my friend and chairman for holding this hearing on a draft 

bill to reauthorize the Pipeline Safety Act. It is an important step 

forward. This bill includes some critical language on having safety 

inspectors that my good friend and fellow Texan, Gene Green, and 

I wrote with another Texan, Brian Babin and Janice Hahn, a Californian, who went to college in Amarillo and Abilene, Texas. 

This process for having inspectors at the federal level is slow and 

difficult. Let us cut the red tape, put inspectors on the ground. Let 

us get safety right. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. This time I recognize 

the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, for his 5 minute opening 

statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this 

important and timely hearing today on pipeline safety reauthorization. I want to also welcome Administrator Dominguez to the subcommittee and thank her for being here. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, it seems that every time we have 

a hearing on pipeline safety, we do so with a backdrop of either an 

ongoing spill or in the immediate aftermath of one. Of course, the 

most recent high-profile incident involved in 2015 the Aliso Canyon 

natural gas storage field in Los Angeles where it is estimated that 

over 90,000 metric tons of methane escaped into the atmosphere 

and thousands of families have been impacted. 

Other high-profile leaks include the May 2015 crude oil spill 

from a pipeline operated by Plains All American Pipeline, along the 

Santa Barbara County coastline. Before that, there was a July 

2010 Enbridge spill near Marshall, Michigan. And later, that same 

year in September, there was also the Pacific Gas and Electric 

Company natural gas explosion in San Bruno in the suburbs of San 

Francisco just to name a few. 

Mr. Chairman, we all know that pipelines are necessary and we 

must continue to build them to meet the energy needs of our nation. However, Mr. Chairman, we also know that many of the current pipelines are aging and they must be replaced, which may 

lead to additional problems if we keep kicking the proverbial can 

down the road. 

Mr. Chairman, we must ensure the American public that this 

subcommittee or jurisdiction is doing everything within our authorVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:37 Feb 16, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-121 CHRIS
4 

ity to ensure that more current and future pipelines are as safe as 

possible. 

In the past, the issue of pipeline safety has been one that we are 

working on in a bipartisan manner. And it is my hope and my expectation that we will continue to do so in the same tradition as 

we address this important issue in this current Congress. 

So again, Mr. Chairman, I applaud you and with that I yield the 

balance of my time to my wonderful colleague from great State of 

California, Ms. Capps. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you. I thank my ranking member for yielding 

and thank you Chairman Whitfield and Ranking Member Rush for 

holding this hearing, Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Pallone, for ensuring we consider pipeline safety in this committee. 

Welcome, Administrator Dominguez. Thank you for visiting my 

district recently. 

On May 19th, the Plains Pipeline 901 ruptured in my district, 

dumping over 120,000 gallons of crude oil along California’s 

Gaviota Coast and into the ocean. This incident not only affected 

public health and the environment, but also our local economy that 

is strongly reliant on tourism, as well as the fishing and shrimping 

industries. While the May spill happened in my community, nearly 

all of us have miles, hundreds of miles of pipeline running through 

our districts, allowing for the transport of natural gas and hazardous liquids, like crude oil, across our country. 

So today’s topic, pipeline safety, is incredibly important to each 

of us. That is why it is critical that our committee come together 

as it historically has to produce a strong bipartisan pipeline safety 

bill that builds on the lessons learned in the Plains spill, as well 

as incidents that have occurred across the country. I am hopeful we 

can again make this a strong bipartisan effort. 

Unfortunately, the draft language as currently written is inadequate in providing the much-needed updates to pipeline safety legislation to ensure the protection of our public health and the environment. 

Whether we are discussing the pipeline rupture in my district 

last May or the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage leak just to the 

south of my district, these incidents occur all too frequently. And 

each time a failure occurs, as it recently did in Chairman Upton’s 

and Ranking Member Pallone’s and my district, the need to act becomes even more clear. It is critical that we take the steps and the 

lessons from these incidents and use them to strengthen our pipeline safety infrastructure. For example, the spill in my district 

highlighted the inadequacies of the in-line inspection process currently used by PHMSA. Even with the shortened inspection interval, the Plains pipeline failed spilling crude across the landscape 

into the ocean. 

So we have many results of this survey and PHMSA has the authority and the resources to require an appropriate time line for inspections for every single pipeline in our country. We must ensure 

that the results from these surveys are made available to PHMSA 

and the public in a timely manner. We must strengthen the high 

consequence areas designation, something this draft falls short on. 

And there is room to strengthen these provisions in the draft before 

us. We must. 

5 

We have this opportunity to improve the existing legislative requirements for pipeline safety. I ask that the chairman work closely with all of us to improve this bill. Thank you. And I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady’s time has expired. At this time, 

I recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Upton, for 5 

minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me just respond 

to my friend, Ms. Capps. I look forward to working with you and 

your staff and we are continuing to do that. 

Pipeline safety is something that I take very seriously. And it 

has long been a priority for me as well as this committee. Spills, 

as we know, can be very disastrous and it is imperative that our 

laws stay up to date and work to minimize potential damage as 

well as try to prevent them from happening in the first place. 

In the wake of the serious oil spill that affected the Kalamazoo 

River, just outside of my district, I worked on a strong bipartisan 

basis with my friend, John Dingell, in conjunction with our friends 

on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to enact the 

Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 

2011. While the legislation’s name might be hard to remember, its 

positive effects are not. This bipartisan bill, law, helps prevent 

pipeline failures, strengthens safety standards, and holds those responsible for pipeline accidents accountable. 

We cannot achieve the intended objectives of the Pipeline Safety 

Act until it has been fully implemented. The hearing last July revealed that PHMSA has failed to implement many of the mandates 

required by the law under the Pipeline Safety Act of 2011. Today, 

over 4 years after enactment, at least 16 important safety regulations remain overdue. Rulemakings related to leak detection and 

emergency shutoff valves, public education and awareness, accident 

and incident notification are among some of the mandates PHMSA 

has failed to implement which would greatly improve pipeline safety. 

The discussion draft before us today, Pipeline Safety Act of 2016, 

is a starting point in reauthorizing the 2011 law. The draft seeks 

to increase regulatory transparency, speed the completion of overdue safety regs, tighten standards for underground natural gas 

storage facilities and underwater oil pipelines and reauthorizes 

PHMSA’s pipeline safety programs. Taken together, I believe that 

the provisions included within the draft will go a long way towards 

improving pipeline safety, increasing the public confidence in our 

nation’s energy infrastructure. 

And as we learned when examining the Kalamazoo spill, we 

needed to do a lot better job to improve pipeline safety. I think that 

we have made some progress with this draft and the draft bill is 

certainly an important step forward. 

One of the things that I initiated is a new provision requiring annual inspections that are fully transparent for some deep water 

crossings of existing pipelines. That is, in fact, Section 12 of the 

discussion draft would require annual inspections for deep underwater pipelines. A change in the law would mean that lines that 

6 

cross under the Straits of Mackinac between the Upper and Lower 

Peninsula of Michigan would be required to be inspected every 

year, rather than every 5 years and those results made public. 

Though I may not be able to stay for the entire hearing this 

morning, I would appreciate your comments, maybe even in your 

opening statement, as to the support, hopeful support, of that provision as part of this bill. 

Feedback provided by our witnesses today will place us on a path 

towards enacting a bipartisan and meaningful reauthorization bill. 

I look forward to continuing with working with our colleagues on 

the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, as well as our 

colleagues in the Senate, to get this bill done. And I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON

Pipeline safety is something I take very personally, and it has long been a priority 

for me, and this committee. Spills can prove disastrous, and it is imperative that 

our laws stay up to date and work to minimize potential damage, as well as try to 

prevent them from happening in the first place. 

In the wake of the serious oil spill that affected the Kalamazoo River in my district, I worked on a bipartisan basis with my friend John Dingell—and in conjunction with our friends on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee—to enact 

the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011. While the 

legislation’s name might be hard to remember, its positive effects are not. This bipartisan bill helps prevent pipeline failures, strengthens safety standards, and holds 

those responsible for pipeline accidents accountable. 

We cannot achieve the intended objectives of the Pipeline Safety Act until it has 

been fully implemented. A hearing last July revealed that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has failed to implement many of 

the mandates required by law under the Pipeline Safety Act of 2011. Today, over 

4 years after enactment, at least 16 important safety regulations remain overdue. 

Rulemakings related to leak detection and emergency shutoff valves, public education and awareness, and accident and incident notification are among some of the 

mandates PHMSA has failed to implement and which would greatly improve pipeline safety. 

The discussion draft before us today, the Pipeline Safety Act of 2016, is a starting 

point in reauthorizing the 2011 law. The draft seeks to increase regulatory transparency, speed the completion of overdue safety regulations, tighten standards for 

underground natural gas storage facilities and underwater oil pipelines, and reauthorize PHMSA’s pipeline safety programs. Taken together, I believe the provisions 

included within the draft will go a long way toward improving pipeline safety increasing the public confidence in our nation’s energy infrastructure. 

As we learned when examining the Kalamazoo spill, we needed to do a lot better 

job to improve pipeline safety. We have made progress, much work remains, and 

this draft bill is an important step forward. 

I’m hopeful the testimony and feedback provided by our witnesses today will place 

us on a path toward enacting a bipartisan and meaningful reauthorization bill. I 

also look forward to continue to working with our colleagues on the Transportation 

and Infrastructure Committee as we move ahead. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, I will 

recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield and Ranking 

Member Rush for holding this hearing on pipeline safety reauthorVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:37 Feb 16, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-121 CHRIS
7 

ization and the discussion draft released by the committee last Friday. While I believe the draft could and should be much stronger, 

it is a good start and includes some important provisions on underground gas storage, pipeline safety, Technical Assistance Grants, 

and mandamus. 

The vast network of transmission pipelines in this country are 

essentially ‘‘out of sight, out of mind’’ for most Americans. But 

when something goes wrong, these facilities can make themselves 

known in devastating and sometimes deadly ways. Over the last 

year, we have witnessed both 100,000 gallon crude oil spill into 

pristine coastline in Representative Capps’ district in California 

and a massive gas storage facility leak in Los Angeles. The leak 

forced thousands of people from their homes for long periods of 

time and released 96,000 metric tons of methane into the atmosphere, the climate-damaging equivalent of burning 900 million gallons of gasoline. 

My own district experienced the devastation of a pipeline failure 

in 1994 when a pipeline exploded in Edison, New Jersey, destroying about 300 homes. Yet, two decades and four reauthorizations 

later, the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous 

Materials Safety Administration, or PHMSA, has made little 

progress in my opinion in securing the safety of our nation’s pipeline infrastructure. 

I hope that will soon change and I welcome the new Administrator Dominguez who I believe understands these concerns. It appears you and Secretary Fox are determined to bring positive 

change to this agency and I sincerely hope you succeed in your efforts to ensure the safety of our pipeline system. We look forward 

to helping you in any way that we can. 

The discussion draft before us is a modest, but balanced starting 

point for that effort. The draft contains language to address regulation of underground gas storage facilities like Aliso Canyon in California that leaked methane for 5 months until just a week ago. 

However, I don’t believe that it goes far enough and I hope the 

committee will consider adopting the stronger language of H.R. 

4578, authored by Representative Brad Sherman, who represents 

the residents around this facility and lives in the neighborhood 

that experienced the most direct adverse effects of the leak. 

I am encouraged that this draft includes language authored by 

Mr. Green that will allow us to finally begin a conversation about 

the need for PHMSA to have a direct power of authority. It is also 

critical that we provide the necessary tools—including funding—so 

the agency can attract the best and brightest inspectors and safety 

experts in order to carry out its responsibilities. We should also 

give the agency carefully crafted emergency order authority to ensure that PHMSA can address situations and facilities that pose a 

threat to life, property, and the environment. And we should remove barriers to PHMSA’s success, such as the multiple layers of 

overly prescriptive risk assessment and cost benefit analysis that 

have hampered the agency’s efforts to improve safety. 

Finally, I am pleased that the draft contains a provision restoring the ability of the public to compel PHMSA to perform its nondiscretionary obligations. This provision is necessary to address an 

incorrect reading of the 2002 reauthorization by the Ninth Circuit. 

8 

While I have great respect for the courts, it is clear to me that the 

Ninth Circuit’s reading of the Pipeline Safety Act with regard to 

mandamus was just plain wrong. The law always contemplated 

mandamus-type suits to ensure PHMSA does its job. The mandamus language added to the statute in 2002, as part of the whistleblower protection provision, was always intended to be in addition to what was already in the statute not in lieu of the existing 

language as the court incorrectly stated. At our hearing last year, 

we all voiced frustration at PHMSA’s inaction on a number of 

fronts. While I know Administrator Dominguez is trying to change 

this situation, it is still important for the public to have the ability 

to access the courts to ensure PHMSA is keeping our pipeline system safe. 

And while I believe the discussion draft could be stronger, it is 

important to know that the last three pipeline safety and reauthorizations were truly bipartisan efforts that moved our nation forward on safety. Our committee has always produced the best and 

strongest pipeline safety legislation and I look forward to continuing to work with Chairman Upton, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, Representative Capps, and colleagues on both 

sides of the aisle to produce truly meaningful legislation that protects lives, property, and the environment while providing more 

certainty and reducing unnecessary burdens on industry. 

So thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

Thank you Chairman Whitfield and Ranking Member Rush for holding this hearing on pipeline safety reauthorization and the discussion draft released by the committee last Friday. While I believe the draft could and should be much stronger, it 

is a good start and includes some important provisions on underground gas storage, 

pipeline safety technical assistance grants and mandamus. 

The vast network of transmission pipelines in this country are essentially ‘‘out of 

sight, out of mind’’ for most Americans. But when something goes wrong, these facilities can make themselves known in devastating and sometimes deadly ways. 

Over the last year we’ve witnessed both a 100,000 gallon crude oil spill onto pristine 

coastline in Rep. Capps’ district in California and a massive gas storage facility leak 

in Los Angeles. The leak forced thousands of people from their homes for long periods of time and released 96,000 metric tons of methane into the atmosphere—the 

climate damaging equivalent of burning 900 million gallons of gasoline. 

My own district experienced the devastation of a pipeline failure in 1994 when 

a pipeline exploded in Edison, New Jersey destroying about 300 homes. Yet, two 

decades and four reauthorizations later, the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration or PHMSA has made little 

progress in securing the safety of our nation’s pipeline infrastructure. 

I hope that will soon change, and I welcome new Administrator Dominguez, who 

I believe understands these concerns. It appears you and Secretary Foxx are determined to bring positive change to this agency. I sincerely hope you succeed in your 

efforts to ensure the safety of our pipeline system and we look forward to helping 

you any way we can. 

The discussion draft before us is a modest, but balanced starting point for that 

effort. The draft contains language to address regulation of underground gas storage 

facilities like Aliso Canyon in California that leaked methane for 5 months until just 

a week ago. However, I don’t believe that it goes far enough, and I hope the Committee will consider adopting the stronger language of H.R. 4578, authored by Rep. 

Brad Sherman who represents the residents around this facility and lives in the 

neighborhood that experienced the most direct adverse effects of the leak. 

I’m encouraged that this draft includes language authored by Mr. Green that will 

allow us to finally begin a conversation about the need for PHMSA to have direct 

9 

hire authority. It’s also critical that we provide the necessary tools—including funding—so the agency can attract the best and brightest inspectors and safety experts 

in order to carry out its responsibilities. We should also give the Agency carefully 

crafted emergency order authority to ensure that PHMSA can address situations 

and facilities that pose a threat to life, property, and the environment. And, we 

should remove barriers to PHMSA’s success, such as the multiple layers of overly 

prescriptive risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis that have hampered the agency’s efforts to improve safety. 

Finally, I’m pleased that the draft contains a provision restoring the ability of the 

public to compel PHMSA to perform its non-discretionary obligations. This provision 

is necessary to address an incorrect reading of the 2002 reauthorization by the 

Ninth Circuit. While I have a great respect for the courts, it’s clear to me that the 

Ninth Circuit’s reading of the Pipeline Safety Act with regard to mandamus was 

just plain wrong: the law always contemplated mandamus-type suits to ensure 

PHMSA does its job. The mandamus language added to the statute in 2002 as part 

of the whistleblower protection provision was always intended to be an addition to 

what was already in the statute, not in lieu of the existing language as the Court 

incorrectly stated. At our hearing last year, we all voiced frustration at PHMSA’s 

inaction on a number of fronts. While I know Administrator Dominguez is trying 

to change this situation, it is still important for the public to have the ability to 

access the courts to ensure PHMSA is keeping our pipeline system safe. 

While I believe the discussion draft could be stronger, it’s important to note that 

the last three pipeline safety reauthorizations were truly bipartisan efforts that 

moved our nation forward on safety. Our committee has always produced the best 

and strongest pipeline safety legislation. I look forward to continuing to work with 

Chairman Upton and Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, Rep. Capps and 

colleagues on both sides of the aisle to produce truly meaningful legislation that protects lives, property and the environment while providing more certainty and reducing unnecessary burdens on industry. 

Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Pallone yields back the balance of his time, 

so that concludes the opening statements. 

And I would like to introduce our only witness on Panel 1 this 

morning and that the Honorable Marie Therese Dominguez, who is 

the Administrator for the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety 

Administration at the U.S. Department of Transportation. She has 

had an illustrious career. She was the Assistant Secretary for Civil 

Works over at the Army Corps of Engineers, as well as other positions. We are delighted that you are here. We look forward to your 

testimony and the opportunity to ask questions. So you are recognized for 5 minutes, Madam Administrator. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARIE THERESE 

DOMINGUEZ, ADMINISTRATOR, PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Thank you, sir. Good morning. Chairmen 

Upton, Whitfield, Ranking Members Pallone and Rush, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today 

on the reauthorization of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s pipeline 

safety program. 

PHMSA operates in a dynamic and challenging atmosphere. The 

demand for our work has increased as has the complexity and 

scope of our mission and responsibilities. The development of new 

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

Recent incidents and increased public awareness and sensitivity 

to safety hazards and environmental consequences have resulted in 

10 

increased scrutiny of the agency and it demands that we become 

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

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

priority of PHMSA. The Act included 42 new congressional mandates to advance PHMSA’s safety mission and we have completed 

26 of those mandates to date. 

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

addressing four outstanding rulemakings, including publishing a 

final rule on pipeline damage prevention programs and proposed 

rulemakings on expanding the use of excess flow valves in distribution pipelines, as well as operator qualification, cost recovery, and 

accident notification, and a significant rule addressing safety of 

hazardous liquid pipelines. 

We are currently and actually, I just got news this morning, that 

OMB has completed its review and we are planning on publishing 

within the next couple of weeks gas transmission, the gas transmission rule which has been outstanding. 

Congress has made investments in PHMSA, providing 100 new 

positions for the pipeline safety program in the last year. And we 

have filled over 91 percent of these positions. 

Moving forward, we must continue to utilize the investments 

Congress has provided wisely. Over the past 6 months, I have 

worked to better understand PHMSA’s strengths, capability gaps, 

and areas for improvement. We have undertaken an organizational 

assessment that evaluated the agency’s structure and processes. 

This assessment provided PHMSA’s leadership team deeper insight 

into an organization where safety is a personal value for all of our 

talented and dedicated employees. And it also highlighted critical 

investment areas. 

As a result, PHMSA has updated its strategic framework, recognizing the need to improve our capacity to leverage data and economic analysis, to promote continuous improvement in safety performance through the establishment of safety-management systems, both within the agency and across the industry, and by creating a division that will support consistency in mission execution. 

This new framework called PHMSA 2021 was directly informed by 

PHMSA employees and will allow us to be more predictive, consistent, and responsive as we fulfill our mission in protecting people and the environment by advancing the safe transportation of 

energy and other hazardous materials that are essential to the 

daily lives of all Americans. 

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

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

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

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

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

continuing to work with the Congress to reauthorize PHMSA’s 

pipeline safety program and I would be pleased to answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dominguez follows:] 

11 


20150.001
12 


20150.002
13 


20150.003
14 


20150.004
15 


20150.005
16 


20150.006
17 


20150.007
18 


20150.008
19 


20150.009
20 


20150.010
21 


20150.011
22 


20150.012
23 


20150.013
24 


20150.014
25 


20150.015
26 


20150.016
27 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, thank you, Administrator Dominguez, and 

I recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions. 

In your opening statement you made reference to the gas transmission regulation. Is that proposed at this point? You all are not 

getting ready to finalize that. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. It is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. And that was one of the—— 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. That is one of the outstanding mandates. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And how many outstanding mandates are there 

right now? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Right now there are 16. If we address the gas 

transmission rule that addresses several different sections of the 

Pipeline Act of 2011. And as I said, that will be addressed in the 

coming weeks. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Right. Well, we appreciate that. You came to 

PHMSA, you had not been involved in PHMSA before. You were 

appointed to this position, I guess. You took over, was it in August? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I was confirmed in August of last year. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. If you were speaking to the Rotary Club in 

rural Kentucky, for example, and you were talking about safety of 

our national pipelines, how would you characterize it to a layman 

today, our system here in the U.S.? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Well, having worked at PHMSA, I can tell you 

that first and foremost the employees of PHMSA are incredibly 

dedicated to our safety mission. And the safety mission encompasses hazardous materials and pipelines. And I can tell you that 

that level of dedication extends across the board to every aspect of 

our rulemaking, our inspection process, and our enforcement regime that we undertake as an agency. Pipelines is one aspect of 

that. It is a mode of transportation for hazardous materials that we 

regulate. We take our mission very seriously and look to make sure 

that we are continuously working to improve that framework for 

safety. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now I think the pipeline industry safety record 

is generally improving, but concerns have been expressed about a 

series of accidents. You think overall we are doing better, right? Or 

are you concerned about overall—some of these pipelines are pretty 

old. Some of the improvements that need to be made have been delayed because of the uncertainty about regulations and so forth. Do 

you think that the fact that these mandates have not been completed yet, is that contributing in a significant way to increased 

safety issues in your view or not? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I think we have opportunity, given the 2011 requirements to continue to enhance safety. I think in particular the 

two rules that we have been working on most aggressively in the 

last 6 months certainly that I have personally engaged on are first 

the hazardous liquid rule, and second, this gas transmission rule. 

Both of those were requirements from the 2011 act and are very 

significant to actually improving the safety of both gas and liquid 

transmission. And they expand some of the requirements that will 

certainly enhance safety and we believe lead to greater protections 

across the board for people and the environment. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Section 15 of our discussion draft is in parentheses, and it would allow a private individual to file a lawsuit 

28 

against PHMSA for failure to perform a non-discretionary duty. 

Have you or has PHMSA taken a position on that particular part 

of this draft? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. We have had a chance to review the language 

that was published by the committee. I would be happy to work 

with the committee moving forward on how to best frame that provision, that particular provision. But obviously, there are provisions 

for citizens to have the right to sue, whether it is the Federal Government or private entities. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. They can sue you already as a matter of fact. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Yes. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Thank you very much. I recognize Mr. Rush for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Dominguez, last week we had a very informative 

and inspirational meeting in my office. We briefly discussed the 

process for hiring talent for PHMSA, the challenges that PHMSA 

faced when competing against the private sector, and I think that 

some of your insights need to be shared with the members of this 

subcommittee regarding some of the challenges and some of the 

possible remedies to help the agency attract top candidates to help 

you accomplish and achieve your mission. 

And in your comments, would you include your thoughts about 

Mr. Green’s proposal and whether or not this speaks towards the 

issue? Give us some insight into your challenges? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Thank you, sir. I believe you are referring to 

the ability for PHMSA to do direct hire. And the committee is certainly taking that up in their draft legislation. And I very much appreciate it. 

The Congress has been incredibly generous in providing funds to 

PHMSA. Over the last year alone we were provided 122 new positions to the agency. One hundred nine of those positions went directly to the pipeline safety program. And we have been working 

diligently to try and fill those as quickly as possible. We are at 

about a 91 percent fill rate right now. But I will tell you that it 

is difficult to compete against the private sector in particular. Everyone is going after great talent in this country and the provision 

that has been provided on direct hire authority would greatly assist 

us regardless of what the market is in making sure that we can 

bring on folks in a timely way. And the federal process is such that 

direct hire authority would definitely assist us in making sure that 

we are able to access the folks with the talent and skills to work 

in these critical jobs. 

Mr. RUSH. And so let me move on to another matter. What role 

should Congress play in helping to address the issue of replacing 

the nation’s aging pipeline infrastructure? As you know, at one 

point during the negotiations of the larger energy bill last year, 

this subcommittee discussed the idea of creating a grant program 

to help mitigate the cost of replacing these aging pipelines for lowincome families. Unfortunately, that program was scrapped. 

What do you believe is the proper role that Congress should play 

in this debate? Should the role of Congress be one of providing for 

national support, offering guidance, lessening minimal safety 

standards or something else entirely? 

29 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I believe that the role of the Congress is to 

make sure that we provide the most stringent opportunity for safety in the pipeline area. And so the TAG grants that you are referring to, the Technical Assistance Grants that the states have offered are truly valuable investments to local communities. And 

they have helped educate communities on safety pipeline issues. 

They have helped emergency responders across the board. And 

PHMSA, I believe, has employed some very good internal controls 

on how we actually use those programs we have reviewed and our 

processes are such that how we award them and how they are actually administered is a good way forward. So we appreciated the 

provisions that were provided and they have clearly done good 

work in communities. 

Mr. RUSH. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the 

chair recognizes the chair, Mr. Upton. 

Mr. Olson, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair. Welcome, Administrator 

Dominguez. I would like to talk about staffing at PHMSA, where 

are we now, where you would like to go, and how can DHA help? 

Following up on a lot of questions from Ranking Member Rush. 

In your testimony, you mentioned that direct hire authority 

would cut hiring time from 100 days to 30 days, a 70 percent reduction by the math. As I mentioned in my opening statement, 

Gene Green and I have a bipartisan bill to give PHMSA, you, DHA 

authority for a few years as you work through the new regulations. 

Obviously, hiring only matters if you get those inspectors in the 

field. Would you please talk about how PHMSA is improving training for inspectors? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Thank you for the question. We have, as I 

noted, we have been aggressively hiring and the opportunity right 

now, we have been able to fill about 91 percent of our positions. 

That said, as we bring people on board, we have a very rigorous 

training program that we have rehabbed and literally put in place. 

It is a boot camp of sorts, not only just for our new inspectors, but 

the states are also doing a lot of hiring as well. And the state inspectors are also participating in this training. It is being conducted at our Training and Qualifications Center in Oklahoma 

City, Oklahoma. We just hired a new director over the course of the 

last 6 months. He comes with a great deal of experience in this 

field. And as inspectors are deployed, they will have some of the 

latest and greatest tools at their dispense to use. 

Mr. OLSON. And that’s important. Thank you, ma’am. About Section 2 and Section 3 of the discussion draft. They require PHMSA 

to keep Congress and the public informed of the status of overdue 

rules and tackle them before beginning new rulemakings. Do you 

agree that this is a sensible and achievable requirement and any 

concerns about pressure points where you might feel some pressure 

to comply with these ideas, these new policies? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. As I noted in my opening statement, the 

prioritization of the 2011 mandates is something we take extremely 

seriously at PHMSA and completing those mandates is truly a priority. That said, there is always emerging risk that needs to be addressed. And so I appreciate the opportunity to work with the ConVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:37 Feb 16, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-121 CHRIS
30 

gress to complete the mandates, but we also need to be in a position to address any emerging risk as it does appear. 

Mr. OLSON. So it sounds like the 2011 mandates are pressure 

points. Any other pressure points you are concerned about going 

forward with keeping Congress and the public informed, more personnel, just whatever? I mean how can we make sure you do your 

job and the people back home know that this is safe? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Well, I thank you for the investment that has 

been made by the Congress thus far. We are going to continue to 

make sure that we are using those resources wisely. Part of what 

we are doing is making sure that we are structuring the agency for 

that level of success as well. And some of the investment is to actually make sure that we are creating opportunities inside the agency 

to be more forward looking, proactive, data-driven, and improve our 

economic analysis and data analysis so that our rulemaking is as 

strong as it possibly can be and meet the requirements. 

Mr. OLSON. And one final question. This is on Section 6 of the 

discussion draft that requires PHMSA to conduct timely post-inspection briefings with operators of pipelines. If there is a safety 

hazard, the operator needs to know so they can fix it immediately. 

Would PHMSA have an issue complying with this section going forward to any issues with PHMSA? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I am terribly sorry, sir. Can you repeat the 

question, please? 

Mr. OLSON. Yes, ma’am. Section 6 of the discussion draft requires PHMSA to conduct timely post-inspection briefings of the 

operators of pipelines. If there is a safety hazard that the operator 

needs to know so they can fix it immediately, how does that knowledge get to the operator? That is what I am saying. Can you take 

that mandate? Can you roll with that or do you need more help or 

something because these people need to have that information if 

they don’t have it. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. So we take our inspection process very seriously. And one of the things that is presently part of our requirement for all inspectors is to make sure that they conduct an exit 

interview in a timely way. Right now, it is a 30-day window for inspectors to complete their exit interview process. Moving forward, 

oftentimes it does take more time to develop any sort of enforcement requirements, whether that be a notice of proposed violation 

or other compliance measures that might be needed. So it is a very 

thoughtful process taking in all the data, assessing it, making sure. 

But I do appreciate the need to communicate with the operator and 

we continue to do that. 

So I will say that meeting that 30-day window of our initial findings is something that we are looking to do more consistently 

across the board, but it is a requirement right now within PHMSA. 

And then moving forward, as we develop those recommendations 

and any kind of violation orders or anything else, we do take those 

very seriously and they are a very thoughtful process. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you very much. I am out of time. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, I recognize the gentleman from—I was going to say New Jersey, but I will 

say California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes. 

31 

Mr. MCNERNEY. I thank the chairman. We are a long way from 

New Jersey. But we have had three high-profile failures in California over the last several years, so my first question, Administrator Dominguez, is do you feel that the states should have the option of requiring measures like shut-off valves, pressure monitors, 

testing of down-hole devices, if the federal regulators fail to do so? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Thank you for the question. The way the process works right now and what Congress has mandated is that the 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, PHMSA, 

sets the minimum federal requirements across the board for all the 

states. The states are then allowed to go above and beyond those 

requirements and any given state can choose to do so regardless of 

what the requirement is. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So your requirements should be seen as floors, 

not ceilings? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Correct. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Will the draft legislation help 

PHMSA prevent these and other failures, so the legislation that we 

are talking about, or are there holes in the legislation that you 

think need to be filled in? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Our requirements look to create what we believe to be the safety measure that needs to be put in place. And 

again, if states choose to do more and put in place more stringent 

requirements they are able to do so. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I mean the current legislation we are talking about today—— 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Yes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Are there things that you think should be added 

or subtracted from that that you would like to discuss? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. We have put forward a series of principles that 

I think address any additional requirements. We are looking in 

particular at other ways that we can enhance our enforcement capabilities. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So you don’t want to advise us here today? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. The one thing that will say that is in my testimony is to look for additional opportunities to level emergency 

order authority, an ability that other federal agencies have and actually our hazardous material program has which is also under 

PHMSA’s authority. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. Let us talk about smart pigs versus 

direct assessment. My understanding is that if smart pigs could 

have been used in one of the high-profile failures in California, it 

would have prevented that, but they weren’t able to be used because the pipelines were so old. Is that a common problem that 

smart pigs can’t be used throughout the country because of aging 

pipelines? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. We do have an aging infrastructure system in 

this country and one of the things that we have looked to address 

across the board is really encouraging. We have done a call to action over the course of the last 5 years in encouraging states. About 

37 states have actually addressed this by looking to incent and providing opportunities to replace aging pipes around the country. 

That said, there is still more work to be done and how to pay for 

that is a difficult proposition. 

32 

We are working directly with states and the industry to continue 

to encourage that replacement of pipe and as you look at different 

opportunities on the inspection process, regardless of the tool that 

you use, you need to make sure that you use the right tool to address the pipe that you are actually trying to assess so that it not 

only protects the integrity of the pipe, but you actually get the 

analysis that you are looking for. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Is there any technology on the horizon that will 

improve that capability? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. We are constantly looking to invest in research 

and development. It is a big part of our program, R&D, to look to 

identify emerging technologies. The research that PHMSA has 

done to date is to identify 26 new technologies including sonar-related pigging capabilities. So it is a good investment. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, let us talk about substandard steel. Is this 

is an on-going problem or has that been resolved and new pipelines 

that go into use are up to standard steel? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I believe that PHMSA has addressed substandard steel in a variety of advisory bulletins and other things 

for the operators that have substandard steel to replace it. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Do you believe that the industry consensus 

standards often reflect the best practices or do they reflect something a little less capable than the best practices? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Consensus standards are a very good way to actually identify opportunities to work together both with states, the 

Federal Government, and the operators, to develop a set of requirements that the industry can then apply, both by executive order 

and by congressional action. Adoption of consensus standards is a 

way forward in lieu of rulemaking. That said, rulemaking in and 

of itself provides a very strong basis for actually implementing the 

safety measures. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I haven’t run out of 

questions, but I have run out of time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, you have. Thank you. At this time, I will 

recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Administrator, 

thanks very much for being here today. 

The recently proposed rulemaking addresses hazardous liquid 

pipeline shows some incremental progress to address safety. However, there are overdue regulations and I think you said that of the 

42 you have addressed 26 and we have 16 to go. But when you are 

looking at some of these overdue regulations relating to leak detection and emergency shutoff valves, integrity management of natural gas pipelines, public education and awareness efforts, and accident and incident notification, do you know when we can expect 

some of these rules to be published? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Well, thank you for the question. We have addressed two major rulemakings, well, four in the last 6 months. 

But we are looking at—we published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for hazardous liquids last October. It was a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that went out. We are working to finalize that 

rule right now. We collected comments. Our advisory committee 

met and we are working to finalize that rule. We hope to have it 

out this year. 

33 

As I noted, we have received confirmation that the Office of Management and Budget has completed its review of our gas transmission line as of this morning and we will be looking to publish 

that as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking over the course of the 

next couple of weeks. That will be available publicly and then we 

will work to complete that rule as well. 

Mr. LATTA. OK, so that timeline you say is going to be in the 

next, what, 3 weeks on the last one you said? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. On gas transmission? 

Mr. LATTA. Right. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. As soon as we are able to, we will publish it, 

so hopefully some time, no later than the next 2 weeks. 

Mr. LATTA. So just in the meantime though will PHMSA also 

commit to sharing a time line or the schedule for that completion 

then? So you are going to have that out? Is that correct? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Is that a question for the gas transmission rule 

Mr. LATTA. I beg your pardon? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I am sorry, can you repeat the question? 

Mr. LATTA. That you will commit to sharing that time line, if it 

is 3 weeks for the one, but for the others, will you commit to a 

timeline in getting that out? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Yes. And actually, we do publish on our Web 

site the status of all of the requirements that are available and we 

update it regularly. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. And what, if anything, has PHMSA done 

since creating the 811 Dial Before You Dig program to incorporate 

new technologies or best practices to improve communication between the stakeholders for receipt of an excavation notification 

until the successful completion of the excavation as recommended 

by PHMSA’s nine elements of effective damage prevention programs? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Damage prevention is one of the leading causes 

of serious death and injury related to—it is one of the leading 

causes of pipeline incidents. And so we have invested an enormous 

amount of time and energy and resources to making sure that we 

are not only partnering with the states and the operators, but we 

are also working with common ground alliance to make sure that 

there is awareness across the board of these risks and making sure 

there are one-call centers available in states. 

There are some states that have not adopted one-call provisions. 

We are working with them right now. 811, it is proven the metrics 

are there, that if you actually call before you dig the risk is almost 

eliminated of excavation damage. So there is huge value in making 

sure that those excavation rules are abided by and adopted. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. And finally, with my last minute here, 

how do pipeline operators use the in-line inspection or so-called 

smart pig technology to find problems in their pipelines? 

And then also, how accurate is the smart pig technology of finding cracks and other potential issues with the pipeline? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. So as part of our requirements, we look to make 

sure that the integrity of any particular pipeline is assessed and 

we put the onus on the operators to actually assess their own pipelines. And we set the requirements for what they need to look at, 

how they need to look at it, etcetera, and interpret that data. And 

34 

then we go and inspect to make sure that they are actually complying with the requirements that we put forward. 

The in-line inspection tools that are available are constantly advancing. And as we look to advance that technology, we will have 

more data that is available to actually understand the exact operation of any given pipeline, assess it, and make sure that the operator is actually doing what they need to do to improve and enhance 

safety. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, it looks like my time 

has expired. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the 

chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Capps, for 5 

minutes. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you again, Administrator Dominguez, and your team for visiting the Gaviota 

Coast in my district and for appearing here today. 

As you may know, I sent a letter to your office yesterday with 

many of the questions that continue to arise in the aftermath of 

the Plains oil spill and I ask unanimous consent to enter that letter 

into the records here which I have done. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Ms. CAPPS. But today, I will try to narrow my questioning to a 

few of the still-pressing issues as the central coast of California recovers from the Plains spill with the goal that the answers will 

help make the legislation before us today as strong as possible 

As I said, the safety of our nation’s pipeline infrastructure is 

critically important to protect public health and the environment 

and our local economies. I have several questions for you and so 

the briefer you can be in replying today, but longer answers could 

be submitted if you wish. 

You mentioned in your testimony, Administrator, that PHMSA is 

working to tailor inspection requirements to the risk profile of the 

pipeline operator. In the preliminary findings regarding the Plains 

spill last May, past in-line inspection surveys used to assess the 

condition of the pipeline showed an increasing number of anomalies 

between surveys. All the while, Plains opted to decrease the inspection intervals between surveys voluntarily. Does PHMSA currently 

have the authority to mandate increased frequency of inspections 

for individual pipelines? 

And other than the prescribed frequency for pipelines within the 

high-consequence areas, are there any established triggers that impact required frequency? For example, would a history of increasing anomalies discovered during sequential inspections, as was the 

case with this pipeline, would this automatically trigger a requirement for more frequent inspections? I am sorry, that is a mouthful. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. We do have the authority necessary to look at 

the requirements for frequency of assessing any pipeline. And that 

is what we do. What we need to look at in particular with the 

Plains accident is to understand and we are looking at this as part 

of our final investigative report. As you know, first and foremost, 

thank you again for the opportunity to be in Santa Barbara with 

you and release our preliminary factual report—— 

Ms. CAPPS. Right. 

35 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ [continuing]. Which identified a number of these 

issues and the facts surrounding the Plains case. That said, we are 

still conducting the investigation. As a result of that, if there is additional corrective actions that need to be taken, including anything having to do with an inspection capability, we will certainly 

look at that as part of our recommendation. 

Ms. CAPPS. OK, I hope this will be something that the proposed 

emergency order that you described would be used for, but I am 

going to turn now to the second question that I have. 

The draft legislation would mandate that all response plans include procedures and a list of resources for responding to worstcase scenarios. Here is my question. How frequently are pipeline 

operators required to update response plans? Are operators required to provide interim confirmation that a plan is up to date between reviews? And how does PHMSA ensure that plans are up to 

date? Again, that is a lot to ask. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Thank you for the question. We review facility 

response plans for completeness and accuracy. If anything changes, 

the operator needs to send it back to us. We look at it again. We 

want to make sure that the operator has actually considered all the 

risks and resources that are available in accordance with our federal regulations. If they are not complete, we send them back to 

the operator and they must update them. And that is the procedure 

that we presently use with Facility Response Plans. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you. I have one final question which, again I 

am running short on time, but given the tremendous damage that 

can be done to coastal areas, wherever they are, Great Lakes, the 

East Coast, West Coast, are these coastal areas that act as the 

transition from the land to the ocean—which is where the spill 

happened on our Gaviota coastline, the pipeline ran along the inland and found a culvert and ended up despoiling the ocean beneath it. Would it make sense to also increase the frequency of inspections to include these high-consequence areas? 

Can you tell me how many pipelines or is there a way to get that 

on the record, how many pipelines actually exist in these coastal 

areas? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I would have to get back to you for the record 

on the mileage with regard to pipelines along a coastal area. But 

I will tell you that our rulemaking is such that for hazardous liquids, we look to make sure that any area that we are providing the 

safest requirements possible for hazardous liquids and our gas 

transmission rule that we are looking at right now, we are looking 

to expand the definition of a high-consequence area. So we will also 

expand that coverage as part of the gas transmission rule. 

Ms. CAPPS. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady yields back. At this time I recognize the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Dominguez, since the law was passed in 2011, 5 years ago, 

everything I have read has indicated that the rate of accidents, 

ruptures, leaks, explosions, has not decreased. Do you have something to the contrary over the last 5 years of whether we are making progress? 

36 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I believe that safety is a process of continuous—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Can you speak a little closer? I am very hard of 

hearing. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Sure. I believe that safety is a process of continuous improvement. So as we have transitioned in this country to 

a very robust energy environment, it has been a very dynamic energy environment certainly the last decade, we are looking to make 

sure that all of our safety requirements are as—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. I know that. I understand. It is why you got this 

job, apparently. You didn’t have a lot of background in hazardous 

material, but you did have a good background in communicative 

and political skills. So I am just trying to ask a direct question. 

Everything I have read is that the rate of accidents are not decreasing and in many respects actually increasing since pipeline 

safety went into effect. So I know your mission. You want to 

achieve that, but from what we have read—that is why I was asking you. Do you have evidence that ever since the pipeline safety 

that it has been an effective tool that you have actually been able 

to reduce it? Because coming from where we are in eastern Ohio, 

western Pennsylvania and all of West Virginia, we have a rush of 

pipelines, and as I said last year to your predecessor, virtually 

every month there is an accident, a flame, some rupture, some 

leak, something happening that we weren’t experiencing before. So 

I am trying to find a way to get some sense of confidence for the 

American public that our pipeline program is worth the investment 

and the time to do that. 

So again, let me try it again with you. Do you have evidence that 

our pipeline accident rates are decreasing or stay status quo? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I would say that you should have every confidence that not only is PHMSA robustly addressing our mission on 

pipeline safety, that we have a level of dedication to make sure 

that that actually takes place and that the accidents that we are 

looking at we are learning from and making sure that we have— 

whether it is Santa Barbara—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Can you get back to me then? I am sorry if I am 

putting you on the spot. You are trying to play politics. I don’t 

want to play. I just wanted some facts. Are we increasing or decreasing? I would appreciate that. 

The other is the lack of not having completed—I think last year 

we had 16 or 17 weren’t completed, and then your statement you 

said 16 aren’t completed. I am missing something. Why aren’t they 

finished? If there was a law passed, is this part of the administration to say we are just not going to do it? We are not going to enforce the law? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. So in the last 6 months, we have moved forward 

on four and now five of the requirements from the 2011 Act. So we 

are moving as aggressively as we possibly can. It has been a priority for the agency to address these 2011 mandates and I can tell 

you that our focus is very laser-like on making sure that these requirements are met. 

That said, the rulemaking process is one that is intended to be 

thoughtful and methodical and it takes time. So I am not using 

that as—— 

37 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Well, you had 5 years to do that. I would think 

if you were industry, I think you probably would have been fined 

by now. If you were an industry and violated the law. So I will be 

curious to see what the consequences are in finishing. I think your 

answer earlier was you were going to get back to us with some of 

the answers or what the deadline might be, your time line in getting those. I would sure like to see that as well. 

But the bottom line here is we have so much pipeline being constructed in West Virginia for the Marcellus and the Utica, that if 

we took a poll right now I am afraid a lot of the residents would 

turn on the pipeline because they see so many problems associated 

with it. So I am trying to get the confidence. If we are going to be 

energy independent and we are going to be able to tap into this for 

our energy sources in the future, they have got to have confidence 

with that farmer, if there is going to be a 42-inch pipeline across 

his field, that he doesn’t have to worry about it. And right now, I 

don’t think the American public has confidence in government now 

as giving us that assurance. So I really hope that you can finish 

your work that you were charged to do 5 years ago and get this 

thing at a point we can see a marked decrease in the amount of 

accidents across this country. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Thank you. And I will tell you that not only are 

we working diligently to complete the mandates that Congress has 

provided, but we are also looking to enhance our safety performance by employing safety management systems which will raise the 

bar not only for PHMSA, but more importantly for the industries 

that we regulate to make sure that we are identifying and addressing all of the emerging risk, analyzing data, and truly informing 

that risk model moving forward. So safety management systems 

are really that next level of improvement on safety. And that is 

something that I am personally committed to, the agency is personally committed to, and I know we are working aggressively with all 

involved to get there. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. My time has expired. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. At this time 

I will recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Doyle, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to thank 

you for holding this hearing today and to thank our witnesses for 

testifying. 

I am glad we are considering this important reauthorization legislation and I think the discussion draft under consideration represents a good first step in the process. 

Administrator Dominguez, I am concerned that PHMSA is still 

far from completing mandates instituted under the Pipeline Safety 

Act of 2011. Overdue regulations include those related to leak detection and emergency shutoff valves, as well as public education 

and awareness efforts. 

What are the biggest challenges facing you right now in getting 

these completed? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. We have been working through a very diligent 

and thoughtful rulemaking process and we have completed two, I 

think, of the most significant, although they are all significant reVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:37 Feb 16, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-121 CHRIS
38 

quirements in the last 6 months alone. The first one was on the 

hazardous liquid rule which was published in October of last year. 

The one that I was addressing today which OMB has announced 

that they have completed their review and will be looking, we, 

PHMSA, will be looking to publish that over the course of the next 

2 weeks is on gas transmission. It is a very comprehensive rule addressing a number of areas with regard to integrity management 

of gas transmission and really looking at strengthening both hazardous liquid and gas transmission rules. 

Mr. DOYLE. So what assistance can our committee provide to ensure that this is done as quickly and responsibly as possible? How 

can we be of assistance to you in that regard? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Well, I appreciate that Congress has invested in 

PHMSA. We have received, as I mentioned, 109 new positions. 

Most of those positions have gone to the field. Those are inspectors. 

We are training them and getting them up to speed as quickly as 

possible. And we are also using the remaining funds to strengthen 

our capabilities. As I mentioned, one of the things that we are engaged in is organizing the agency itself to be more data driven, 

more innovative, more predictive. And one of the things we are 

doing is looking at enhancing our data and analytics capabilities 

which will, in turn, help us in our rulemaking by collecting data 

and informing our regulations in a more productive way moving 

forward. 

Mr. DOYLE. I want to also ask you about emergency order authority and authority other administrators enjoy. Can you describe 

in greater detail potential events that could justify the use of such 

authority and how having such an authority would be beneficial in 

those circumstances? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Thank you for the question. You are correct. 

Even within PHMSA’s own program, we are responsible for both 

hazardous materials and pipeline operation, pipeline safety. And 

emergency order authority, we have it on our hazardous materials 

program side. We are seeking it on the pipeline safety side. 

An example of where we might use it would be—there have been 

in the past defective fittings for pipelines that have been found. If 

we were able to have emergency order authority we would be able 

to ask that directly that operators address those defective fittings. 

Pre-1970s pipe and anything that was low-grade steel that needed 

to be addressed, that has in the past been found to be a problem. 

That is the type of work that we would do, something that would 

need to be addressed on a national basis. That would be the circumstance for an emergency authority. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. I am also interested in LNG exports and 

certainly share your support for strong safety standards in this 

area. Are there particular areas within this subject that you think 

require additional direction from our committee or the administration? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. We have been working to actually look to see. 

The LNG market has really transformed in this country over the 

course of the last 10 years alone. As you know, the United States 

has gone from importing LNG to now being a major exporter. I was 

just down in Louisiana a few weeks ago at the Cheniere facility 

which is now online and exporting LNG on a global basis. 

39 

So as we move forward, we have got a very changing energy market and a very changing dynamic. And we have the authority to actually establish and enforce the safety standards for onshore LNG 

facilities, so while we look at other methods of transporting LNG, 

that is something that PHMSA is aggressively looking at right 

now, making sure that we are keeping pace with innovation and 

technology for other forms of transportation of LNG. 

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the 

chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And 

thank you, Administrator Dominguez, for joining us today. 

Section 11 requires that PHMSA issue new regulations for underground natural gas storage facilities. And the recent incident at 

an underground natural gas storage facility in California certainly 

highlights the importance of this requirement. So does PHMSA 

support this provision in Section 11? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I don’t have the exact language in front of me. 

But I believe that—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. But you know that it requires you guys to issue 

regulations. So do you support that? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I will tell you that we have the authority right 

now to regulate the underground storage of natural gas. We do not 

presently have in place regulations that would address anything 

below the surface. So that would be something that we would work 

on. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Do you think it is important for states to retain 

a cooperative role in overseeing these facilities? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. We have been working cooperatively with the 

states for many years. 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, but do you think it is important that they retain that, that cooperative relationship? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Absolutely. I think that what we need to do is 

work cooperatively across the board. While PHMSA sets the minimum federal standards, the states are always able to exceed those 

standards and should they want to put in place more additional requirements, they would be able to do so. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Section 16 of the discussion draft would reauthorize PHMSA’s pipeline safety and grant programs and later today, 

we will hear from the states who would like to see an increase in 

state grants. The states do the bulk of the inspection work and the 

pipeline statute allows them to be reimbursed up to 80 percent by 

the Federal Government. Did the states receive the full 80 percent 

reimbursement in 2014? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. PHMSA, I will first and foremost tell you that 

we very much value our partnership with the states. And as you 

have stated, part of the money, a good portion of the monies that 

Congress provides us, we in turn grant to the states for their 

work—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. We know. That is what I just said. So my question 

to you is did they receive the full 80 percent reimbursement in 

2014? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. The way that the process is done is—— 

40 

Mr. JOHNSON. Did they receive it? That is a simple question. Did 

they receive it? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. The auditing is that so long as they provide the 

records, we reimburse them for the requirement—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. That is history. That is part of your records. Did 

they receive the full 80 percent? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I will have to go back to look and check the actual—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I can tell you the answer, but would you get 

it and get it back to this committee, please? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I would be happy to. 

Mr. JOHNSON. The answer is no, they did not. It was only 75 percent and can you give us any idea why they did not? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Again, as part of our process what we look for 

is confirmation of—we sent out a series of requirements for the 

states. They have to then provide their expenditures and then we 

reimburse them. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Would PHMSA support a relative increase in 

funds for state grants? You have acknowledged that the states do 

the bulk of the work, would you support an increase, a relative increase in those funds for state grants? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I think the balance that we have right now, we 

are always looking to enhance safety, if that was a measure. The 

balance that we have now between the state and federal relationship is a good balance and if there were more funds available for 

PHMSA to help execute its state grant program, we would be 

happy to consider that. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I would think that balance would be improved if 

the states got the full reimbursement for their 80 percent though. 

Would you agree with that? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Again, I want to be clear. Because part of the 

measure here is that there is transparency in the expenditures and 

so while it may be 80 percent or 75 percent reimbursement, I will 

check and get back to you for the record. That is something that 

is actually reviewed very seriously as we reimburse states for their 

expenditures. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK, all right. Very quickly, PHMSA, as you know, 

I believe, should encourage performance based risk management 

regulations whenever possible because this data-drive approach to 

safety offers the greatest flexibility allowing pipeline operators to 

adapt their programs and plans to provide an adequate margin of 

safety. 

So it has been reported that some rules under consideration by 

PHMSA are unable to pass the cost benefit analysis. If this is the 

case, why is PHMSA having difficulty incorporating cost into a 

risk-based regulation? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. PHMSA’s pipeline safety program, in order to 

regulate, we have a requirement that Congress provided that our 

benefits have to exceed our costs. So our rulemakings contain that 

requirement across the board. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The chair now recognizes Mr. Loebsack of Iowa 

for 5 minutes. 

41 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for being here, 

Administrator Dominguez, and taking the time to testify. This has 

been a pretty enlightening hearing for me. We have 99 counties in 

Iowa and we have got pipelines everywhere just like everyone up 

here and safety, obviously, is the biggest concern. 

As I read your testimony and as I hear your responses and what 

folks are saying here as well, and again, I am just trying to learn 

what you folks do exactly, what your oversight role is and all the 

rest. 

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that a lot of what you 

do is after the fact, after pipelines have been put in the ground, 

after they have been built. Is that the case? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Actually, we have a great deal of responsibility 

on the front end. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Can you talk about that a little bit? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Sure. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Because that is really what I am more interested 

in than anything. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. So part of our requirements for pipeline safety 

include requirements around new construction for pipeline. So our 

requirements look at making sure that operators fully evaluate any 

newly constructed pipelines that go in to check on any issues that 

could affect a pipe’s ability to operate safely once it is actually in 

operation. So our inspectors go out. They look at welding. They look 

at any kind of coating. And especially for new construction, I can 

tell you that we have applied about 20 to 25 percent of our resources in inspections to actually go out and look at new pipe that 

is being—— 

Mr. LOEBSACK. If I can ask, I mean again, that is kind of after 

the fact, right? That is once the pipes are already there. 

What about, for example, when states are considering new pipelines? What kind of a role do you folks play in that whole process? 

A utilities board, for example, is looking at putting the possibility 

of putting a new pipeline in, might run across the state, might be 

part of the state. What role do you play at that point in that process, if any? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. PHMSA is not directly responsible for any of 

the siting issues that occur, so if it is an intrastate pipeline, the 

state would take that. If it is an interstate gas pipeline, FERC 

would take that responsibility. That said, we always work in close 

coordination and we have been working with the State of Iowa, as 

you have looked to educate, talk about the safety issues around 

pipelines. We have tried to work very cooperatively. I think we 

have done some good work with the State of Iowa as you look to 

expand your pipeline network. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Who determines the integrity of these pipelines 

before a utilities board, for example, actually makes a decision as 

to whether the pipeline is going to be cited or not? Are those federal guidelines? Are those state guidelines? What are those guidelines, for example? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. The actual integrity of the pipeline and its operations is something that PHMSA takes on directly. 

42 

Mr. LOEBSACK. And so the State of Iowa, for example, would 

know what those specifics are when that pipeline before it goes into 

the ground, what those specifics ought to be. Is that correct? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. The requirements for an operation of a pipeline 

and new construction criteria are standards that PHMSA sets. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Right, and the integrity of the pipeline itself, if 

you will. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Yes, we monitor the integrity of the pipeline 

itself. We put the onus of that operation through our integrity assessment requirements and integrity management practices that 

we have. We put that burden directly on the pipeline operator. The 

pipeline operator then has to collect data and we go about inspecting that and then if there is any anomalies or anything that we 

find, we take enforcement action against that. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. But all that information is known to a utilities 

board prior to their making a decision as to whether they are going 

to site a pipeline or not? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. We provide a lot of educational material to 

NARUC and a number of the public utilities commissions around 

the country. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Will the proposed legislation here have any effect 

whatsoever on that—on those particulars and on that process? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I would have to look at the legislation and respond back to you. I am not familiar with the particular section of 

the proposed legislation. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. I just want to make sure that not only the utilities board in any particular state, but the public who are involved 

in the process have all that information as well because there are 

public hearings, as you know, whenever there is a siting. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. We have a great deal of material. PHMSA has 

a great deal of material on our Web site that talks about all of the 

many aspects that we actually cover with regard to new construction of pipeline, assessment, and enforcement actions. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you, 

Mr. Chair. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the 

chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Mullin, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this meeting. 

Ma’am, we do appreciate you being here. I know you are fairly 

new and you are trying to get your head wrapped around it. And 

I commend you for what you are trying to do. Unfortunately, what 

we have seen as PHMSA has got a lot of concerns from Congress 

right now and the way that you are spending money and the grant 

programs that they are going to. And so that is one of the questions 

I have. 

To the Technical Assistance Grants program run by your agency, 

it seems to be a tremendous help providing additional training and 

education on training pipeline safety issues. Unfortunately, I am 

increasingly concerned that some of these taxpayer dollars are 

being awarded to groups that publicly oppose new pipeline infrastructure which was not the intent of Congress. With Congress 

looking to reauthorize the program, can you assure us that you will 

43 

provide the oversight necessary to ensure these grants are being 

executed as Congress intended? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. The Technical Assistance Grants that we have 

provided to states, I believe are valuable programs for education for 

emergency responders as well as the communities around the country. PHMSA indeed has very strong internal controls, to answer 

your question, about how these grant applications are not only reviewed, but also how they are awarded and administered. And so 

that would continue moving forward. 

Mr. MULLIN. Specifically, directing though the issue, how are 

these grants getting into the hands of people that are opposing it? 

If it is supposed to go for training, how is it going to people that 

oppose the pipelines? That has nothing to do with training. That 

has to do with people that are environmentalists, that they don’t 

want the infrastructure built to begin with and they are spending 

money to oppose the pipelines to begin with. It has already been 

happening, so how can you assure us it is not going to continue to 

happen? The oversight, what steps has your agency taken since you 

have been at the helm since August? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. So as move forward on Technical Assistance 

Grants, we would look to make sure that indeed all of those requirements, whether it is review—— 

Mr. MULLIN. What are those requirements? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. There is a series of requirements that each applicant has to meet before—— 

Mr. MULLIN. Specifically, do you know what those requirements 

are? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I don’t have them with me, but I would be 

happy to provide them to you. 

Mr. MULLIN. Are those the same ones that have been in place? 

Or have they been changed since you been there? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. They are the same that have been in place—— 

Mr. MULLIN. So no changes have been made to assure these programs can be made. What we are trying to do here, ma’am, is we 

want to make sure that the tax dollars are being used for their intended purpose. And if there has been no changes made, we already know that these technical grants that went to organizations 

that don’t support pipelines period, they oppose them. These are for 

training to provide safety for those that are installing the pipelines 

and maintaining the pipelines, not for opposition groups. So if you 

haven’t made any changes to it, then you can’t assure us that it 

is not going to continue to be spent in the wrong way. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I would be happy to look and do an assessment 

of the recipients of the Technical Assistance Grants to see where 

some of the actual recipients, what they have done with the money, 

but I can tell you that we do that as part of an annual process and 

review of our grants in general. 

Mr. MULLIN. But even by saying that you did it annually, there 

has been no changes. So does that happen annually then? Have 

you not done it since you have been there? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Not since I have been there, but we are coming 

up on a review of the programs right now, so I will certainly take 

a look at it. 

44 

Mr. MULLIN. Could you please do me a favor? When you do look 

at it, could you get back to either this committee or to my office 

and let us know what changes are going to be made? Because I can 

tell you that if it is going to continue the way that it is going, then 

there is no way I am going to be able to support reauthorization. 

Our number one goal is to have the intent of what Congress had 

for the tax dollars to be spent that way. And when we have opposing groups that are provided with grants that are supposed to be 

for safety and technical training and they are using it to oppose the 

projects to begin with, it seems like that is a waste of taxpayer dollars. Would you agree? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I am not aware of a direct instance where a 

group has come into those dollars, federal dollars, but I will certainly look—— 

Mr. MULLIN. We will be happy to provide you with a list of those 

that have received those grants. 

Now to switch real quick to my last question, I want to talk 

about states. What is the relationship between the states and 

PHMSA right now as far as with pipeline safety and training and 

working with the states and not against the states? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I think we have a very good working relationship with the states across the board. PHMSA is the federal regulator. The states often across the board have authority and through 

a certification process with PHMSA to conduct inspections within 

their respective states. We work cooperatively on that entire process. It is one where we are constantly exchanging information. 

One of the things that we are looking to do in this reauthorization is make sure that the inspection data that the states are collecting is something that we can collect at a federal level as well, 

to make sure that the data analysis is as robust as it can be in 

identifying risk and that is through our information sharing system. 

Mr. MULLIN. Thank you and I went over my time. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman, for yielding more time to me. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair 

recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Administrator 

Dominguez, welcome. Thank you for your leadership. 

As you may know, my district which is in the Capital District region in Upstate New York, has become a hub for energy transportation in recent years, seeing a tremendous boom in crude by rail 

shipments. 

Can you provide an update on the crude by rail spill response 

plan rulemaking? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Thank you for the question, sir. We are moving 

that rulemaking very quickly. As you know, the Congress passed 

the FAST Act. It made some changes to some of the provisions. We 

have updated the rulemaking to reflect those changes that the Congress passed in the FAST Act and we have moved that forward 

through the Department, the rulemaking, and are working with 

our colleagues at OMB for a review of that rule right now. 

45 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. And I know you cannot comment on the 

specifics of that package, but can you explain just what was under 

consideration, what is under consideration? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. For the oil spill response? 

Mr. TONKO. Yes. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. We are looking at the provisions that were outlined by the Congress and some of the requirements under the 

FAST Act to make sure that all of those provisions are addressed. 

Mr. TONKO. Right. And you mentioned the FAST Act and the fact 

that you had to incorporate that into your actions. Are there new 

requirements or timelines that you need to take under consideration, other time lines? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. There are. There are new requirements for retrofit schedules and other things with regard to tank car top fittings 

and other aspects of the redesign that we have now taken into account based on the FAST Act. 

Mr. TONKO. Let me just state that I believe that it is critical for 

the public and the emergency responders’ safety that they have all 

the information, the resources, and equipment in place to respond 

to an incident quickly and effectively. And spill plans are an important part of that effort. 

I am encouraged that you are moving forward. I hope that it is 

done expeditiously so that we can finish the rule and provide those 

elements to the individuals and groups that I just mentioned. 

But to bring this back to pipeline safety, the National Academy 

of Sciences had a recent study that raised issues with PHMSA’s review of spill response plans. Does PHMSA review, do their review 

plans based on completeness? Do they base it on completeness or 

is the adequacy of those plans also taken under consideration? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. PHMSA actually looks very directly as facility 

response plans for completeness and accuracy to ensure that the 

operators considered all of the risk and the resources in accordance 

with our federal regulations. 

Mr. TONKO. Does PHMSA make recommendations about those 

plans that it feels are inadequate? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Yes, we do. We comment directly on them. We 

send them back to the operators if they are not complete and require them to address any inconsistencies or any failings that we 

find in the response plan. They are obligated to then update them 

and resubmit them for review before we approve them. 

Mr. TONKO. And just how does that work in a functional way? 

Do they respond to those concerns about inadequacy? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Yes they do. It is an iterative process. 

Mr. TONKO. I didn’t hear what you said. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. It is an iterative process, so they are constantly 

being updated. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Where they are constantly being updated. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you very much. And is PHMSA’s decision not 

to regularly conduct two-stage reviews, one for completeness, one 

for adequacy for spill plans an issue of lack of agency resources or 

is it a lack of legal authority? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. As I stated, we do look for both completeness 

and accuracy for facility response plans. 

46 

Mr. TONKO. OK, and has PHMSA made any progress in instituting the NTSB’s recommendations on this issue? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I believe that our requirements now meet the 

NTSB requirements, but I will check and make sure and respond 

directly to you. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. And with an issue of resources, is there an adequate amount of resources to provide for an expeditious response 

to these efforts that come before the PHMSA group or are there 

areas of resource activity that could be strengthening your response? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. We have worked very diligently over the course 

of the last couple of years to make sure that all of the facility response plans that PHMSA reviews are up to date and complete. 

And we have put an enormous amount of resources in that process 

to make sure that that has occurred. Moving forward, if there are 

additional areas for investment, we will be sure to circle back with 

you. Thank you. 

Mr. TONKO. I would appreciate that. And with that, Mr. Chair, 

I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. This time the chair 

recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hudson, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

being here with us today. I want to follow up on the line of questioning from my colleague, Mr. Mullin, talking about—and I was 

pleased to hear you talk about the importance of the cooperation 

with states, but my question is if states are so vital to PHMSA’s 

pipeline safety program, why did PHMSA announce that it intended to rescind existing state-interstate agreements and disallow 

additional states to become interstate agents? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. So I appreciate your question. One of the things 

that we have continued to work on is exactly how we would continue to make sure that not only are we working as cooperatively 

as possible, I had a chance, actually, one of the first meetings that 

I did was go and meet with the National Association of State Pipeline Safety Representatives. These are the folks in every single 

state that represents the state inspection process and are our partners across the board. And that group is a very dedicated group of 

professionals looking to undertake pipeline safety at a very, very 

local level and we greatly appreciate our partnership with them. 

That said, we want to make sure that everything that we look 

at, that we use the money that Congress has given us to make sure 

that if there is a state that has been in trouble, that we are using 

the dollars to make sure that we are investing in that state to help 

rehabilitate them. The last thing we want to do is look to decertify 

a state for their state program. 

So any monies that are given to us for investment in a state 

would literally be used to help rehabilitate a state and make sure 

that we are not in a position of revoking their authority. That 

would be the last measure that we would look to take. Rather, we 

would look to invest in them and help them strengthen their program first and foremost. 

47 

Mr. HUDSON. So this announcement of the intention of rescinding 

existing state-interstate agreements is only focused on states where 

there is a problem? Is that what you are saying? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I am not aware of an announcement that 

PHMSA has made with regard to decertifying states. We would, 

again, our first action would be to work directly with the states and 

look to make sure that we enhance their capability to perform their 

program. 

Mr. HUDSON. OK, well, let me switch gears and talk about gathering lines for a second. Section 21 of the 2011 law directed 

PHMSA to review and report to Congress on existing federal and 

state regulations for all gathering lines. With this report, which 

was submitted more than a year late, PHMSA stated that it is considering the need to propose additional regulations to ensure the 

safety of natural gas and hazardous liquid gathering lines. 

Is PHMSA reviewing the need to propose changes to existing exemptions from federal regulation for gathering lines? If so, when 

will this review conclude? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. We are in the process of looking at that right 

now. Part of the work that we have done with our gas transmission 

rule includes gathering lines. And so as we look to publish the requirements in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for our gas transmission rule, it will include gathering lines. 

Mr. HUDSON. OK. And when do you expect that to conclude? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. We received noticed this morning that OMB is 

concluding their review and we hope to publish the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for gas transmission sometime in the next 2 

weeks. 

Mr. HUDSON. Thank you. Switching gears one more time here before I run out of time, the issue of Maximum Allowable Operating 

Pressure. Section 23 of the 2011 law directed PHMSA to require 

each pipeline owner or operator to verify that the records accurately reflect the physical and operational characteristics of the 

pipeline and to confirm the established Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure of the pipelines. Inadequate records for older pipelines have been a long-standing concern. The statutory deadline 

was July 3, 2013. When can we expect PHMSA to finalize the regulation addressing this issue? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. For Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure, a 

good portion of that is covered in the two regulations that I mentioned earlier, hazardous liquid rule and our gas transmission rule. 

So the hazardous liquid rule is covered, a portion of that. But the 

gas transmission rule also covers how we would best address that 

for gas. 

Mr. HUDSON. So that addresses the issue with the older pipelines 

where we had insufficient records? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Correct. 

Mr. HUDSON. OK. Thank you for that. I am about out of time, 

Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. This time the chair 

recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Long, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LONG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Doyle kind of hit on 

this question earlier, but your agency still needs to fulfill 16 of the 

42 mandates from the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act. And in your testiVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:37 Feb 16, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-121 CHRIS
48 

mony you mentioned that ten mandates will be addressed as part 

of the current rulemaking activities, but the remaining six are tied 

to reports and information collections. Why are several of these 

still in the early information collection phase? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. We are working through those. Right now, several of these reports are tied to some of the rulemakings that we 

are doing. So as we publish the rules, we will be publishing some 

of the reports. Moving forward, we are still doing some information 

collection. Technology is advancing and we still have opportunity to 

collect some more data to inform our reports moving forward and 

that is what we are focused on. 

Mr. LONG. So tell me again the technology is advancing and that 

is slowing down the—I mean technology is advancing all the time. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. It is. So we are still working on information collection on several of those fronts. I am happy to give you the details about exactly the specifics that you are looking at, but I think 

that the two remaining information collection opportunities we 

have under way and I can give you a report. It is also on our Web 

site. But I will be happy to give you a direct update on it. 

Mr. LONG. OK, because what I am kind of looking for is how we 

can speed up that process and get the information. So production 

of liquefied—excuse me, I didn’t know I had a frog in my throat 

before I started this. Production of liquefied natural gas has increased significantly, as you know, in the last few years. How has 

your agency kept up with the LNG boom and have you been able 

to effectively update codes and design standards to keep up with 

this boom? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. So we have been looking very directly at LNG. 

It is something that, as you noted, has really changed the landscape of the United States. And one of the things that we are looking at is how we would update our regulations to make sure that 

we are keeping pace with the technology as it moves forward. 

We are updating our regs right now to provide for certainty in 

the design in the construction and the operation of small scale liquefaction facilities moving forward. 

Mr. LONG. How effectively do you work with FERC as a coordinating agency for siting and reviewing LNG facilities? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. We have a good working relationship with 

FERC and they are directly responsible for a number of the siting 

requirements, in particular, for large scale LNG facilities. 

Mr. LONG. In your testimony, you mention the important role 

states play in inspecting and enforcing both federal and state regulations. How closely do you work with these states in developing 

those regulations? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. We work very closely with the states. The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is directly responsible for setting the federal standards and in turn, states then 

adopt those standards and are able to go above and beyond our requirements. And as the states directly carry out through a certification process with PHMSA, some of the inspection requirements, 

we work hand-in-glove with them, not only to make sure that their 

state inspectors come to our training facility, can take advantage 

of our—and we help provide funds to make sure that they are able 

to come and get trained on the requirements. But then we also 

49 

work very directly with them in the execution of their state programs. 

Mr. LONG. Of the what? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Their state programs. 

Mr. LONG. OK, so setting safety standards, things of that nature? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Correct. 

Mr. LONG. OK, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the 

chair recognizes Mr. Griffith of Virginia for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do appreciate you being here today. I apologize. We had a meeting related 

to the coal industry and black lung. We had a round table with 

Chairman Bobby Scott and another committee was hosting and I 

have a district that has produced a lot of coal over the years, and 

so that was an important issue as well. 

Now along those lines, we have a lot of pipelines being built now 

because of what I would see as the EPA’s war on coal and the shutdown of like half of the industry in the last couple of years. The 

EPA is moving to regulate emissions of methane in the oil and gas 

industry by requiring oil and gas processing and transmission facilities to find and repair methane leaks. This was part of a speech 

given last week by the EPA director, administrator. 

PHMSA has already proposed a leak detection rule and has 

worked with the industry to reduce leaks. In fact, I think overall, 

methane emissions are down about 13 percent in the last couple of 

years through various things that you all are doing. I have concerns about the EPA imposing new regulations on pipeline operations that PHMSA already regulates. 

Has PHMSA provided any advice or guidance to the EPA in the 

development of their strategies and their proposals? Has EPA solicited any advice from you all? And does PHMSA foresee working 

with the EPA in the development of yet new regulations in this 

arena? 

Because time is short, if you could answer all of that quick, I 

would appreciate it. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I think that one of the issues that we need to 

continuously look at in this country is the issue of aging infrastructure writ large. And one of the by-products of aging infrastructure 

is leaks, particularly in natural gas pipelines. 

So as we look to invest in replacement of old pipe, that helps reduce methane emissions, but also across the board helps with that 

larger goal. We always look to partner with our federal—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Across the board, so would be happy to continue 

to do that. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Well, it appears that you all have been doing a 

fairly good job, so I hope they don’t come in and start changing a 

lot of things. I would also have to note that according to Ms. 

McCarthy, the administrator of the EPA, methane is upwards to 25 

times more potent than carbon dioxide, so I am a little concerned 

about that because they have been working so hard to eliminate 

coal, the fossil fuel that is used in this country of which we have 

an abundant supply. I wonder if this is just the opening salvo in 

a new war on natural gas? 

50 

That being said though, we do have a lot of natural gas pipelines 

being built. The Mountain Valley Pipeline is coming through my 

district. I am very pleased to see that you all participated in the 

scoping hearings related to the Mountain Valley Pipeline. And so 

I guess I have to ask what role do you all play in advising or assisting either the pipeline companies or FERC prior to FERC approval 

of a new gas pipeline? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. Thank you for the question. We are truly in an 

advisory and a support role, both to the states and to FERC during 

the siting process. So if there are questions about safety, we often 

partner with FERC or the states to make sure that if citizens have 

questions during public meetings, et cetera, we talk through what 

our requirements are for design, construction, etcetera, of new 

pipeline. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I appreciate that. In mountainous crossings, and 

my district has got a lot of mountains in it, what are PHMSA’s top 

concerns and where do you see the greatest difficulty ensuring the 

long-term structural safety of pipelines when they are crossing over 

and through mountains? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I would tell you that our requirements are fairly robust in the new construction criteria. And so regardless of terrain, there are requirements that look at the geology of any particular area and that those requirements are met as new pipe is 

constructed. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And are there other areas that you believe that 

PHMSA and FERC could collaborate to a greater extent to ensure 

the safety concerns that a lot of my constituents are raising and 

can you get in early in that process as well? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. We, I believe, have been working. I had a 

chance to meet with the chairman of FERC, Norman Bay, and we 

have been working very collaboratively at a very local level to 

make sure that we are addressing citizens’ concerns. And PHMSA’s 

role in all of that is to again articulate what our safety mission is 

and how the actual operation of a pipeline would work once it is 

in the ground. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back and that concludes 

the questions, except I have one other question before I let you go. 

Frequently, we see charts of reportable incidents on pipeline safety 

and it seems to be going up. What is the actual definition of an incident or a significant incident at PHMSA? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I don’t have the actual definition, if it is published, ready at hand, but I will tell you that any time there is an 

impact on people or the environment that impacts the work that 

we do as a result of the operation of a pipeline. So—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So if a pipeline leaks any amount, is that an incident that must be reported? 

Ms. DOMINGUEZ. I will be happy to clarify for the record exactly 

what the requirement is for reporting on an actual incident. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. I would appreciate that because I think that 

is important for us to know. 

Madam Administrator, thank you very much for taking the time 

to be with us today. We appreciate your testimony and look forVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:37 Feb 16, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-121 CHRIS
51 

ward to working with you as we move forward and that concludes 

the questions for you. 

So at this time I would like to call up the second panel of witnesses. On the second panel of witnesses we have five panelists. 

And rather than introduce all of them right now, I am just going 

to introduce them one time and that is when I recognize them for 

their testimony. 

Our first witness this morning is Mr. Norman Saari who is the 

Commissioner for the Michigan Public Service Commission. And he 

is testifying on behalf of the National Association of Regulatory 

Commissioners. So Mr. Saari, thanks very much for joining us and 

you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENTS OF NORMAN J. SAARI, COMMISSIONER, MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION (ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS); RON BRADLEY, VICE PRESIDENT OF GAS OPERATIONS, PECO ENERGY (ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN GAS 

ASSOCIATION); ANDREW BLACK, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ASSOCIATION OF OIL PIPE LINES; DONALD SANTA, PRESIDENT 

AND CEO, INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION OF 

AMERICA; AND CARL WEIMER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PIPELINE SAFETY TRUST 

STATEMENT OF NORMAN J. SAARI 

Mr. SAARI. Chairman, ranking member, committee members, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I want to personally 

thank you for the invitation to share some thoughts and the commitment from a state regulator’s perspective of the importance of 

safe and efficient—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Be sure to just turn that microphone on. 

Mr. SAARI. I beg your pardon, sir. I want to thank you for the 

opportunity to be here today. When Henry Ford rolled his first car 

off the assembly line in 1913, it may have traveled on a roadway 

that already had natural gas pipeline buried beneath it. That Ford 

Model T is likely now in a museum, but there may be some of the 

city’s original gas pipeline still intact and still in use. That car was 

probably taken out of service because of its reliability and safety. 

We have a responsibility to make sure that the pipeline meets upto-date reliability in current safety standards or it, too, must be 

taken out of service or replaced. 

The Michigan Public Service Commission joins with regulators 

nationwide to work on programs that ensure safe operations of the 

existing natural gas infrastructure on new projects with a top priority of protecting public health and safety in an environmentallyconscious manner. We join and collaborate with the Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, PHMSA, the U.S. Department of Transportation, FERC, and other federal agencies to 

coordinate these programs between federal interstate pipeline jurisdiction and state intrastate regulation. 

As I have highlighted in my submitted testimony, states rely 

upon a working partnership with PHMSA to develop and coordinate pipeline safety programs. This mutual effort requires sufficient federal funding needed to achieve the excellence we seek to 

52 

administer one-call programs, complete timely inspections of new 

and existing natural gas lines, monitor and regulate gas storage facilities, and promote public education and awareness. 

The Michigan Commission works with its local companies to regulate programs for gas main construction and replacement and gas 

storage field operations and safety upgrades, while finding the 

proper balance of what its rate payers can afford to pay. 

Meeting the completion targets of replacement over 7,000 miles 

in Michigan of natural gas mains will require expenditures over 

the next decade in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Other states 

have similar financial challenges. Staying on track and on target 

to meet these goals will require increased financial support from 

PHMSA to the states. 

Current law says that the states may be reimbursed up to 80 

percent by the Federal Government. During the 4 years prior to 

2014, states averaged only 73 percent reimbursement and needed 

to request suspensions to merely achieve that level of reimbursement. In 2014, the latest year money was reimbursed to the states, 

the base grant was about $42.2 million for gas and hazardous liquids. The state spent about $56.4 million on these pipeline safety 

programs. This meant states as a whole were reimbursed approximately 75 percent of what they spent. 

In order to keep state programs where they currently are, we 

would respectfully request an authorization for appropriation and 

appropriation for the fiscal year 2016 of no less than $49.5 million 

for state base grants increasing by no less than 4 percent each fiscal year thereafter. We need to be fully authorized and funded to 

carry out our mission. 

We all benefit from a sharing of information on best work practices, best regulatory approach, and best use of resources to meet 

these goals. 

Thank you for the opportunity to tell you that Michigan joins 

with NARUC and all other state regulators to work collaboratively 

with government and various stakeholder groups to achieve a 

world class pipeline safety program. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Saari follows:] 

53 


20150.017
54 


20150.018
55 


20150.019
56 


20150.020
57 


20150.021
58 


20150.022
59 


20150.023
60 


20150.024
61 


20150.025
62 


20150.026
63 


20150.027
64 


20150.028
65 


20150.029
66 


20150.030
67 


20150.031
68 


20150.032
69 


20150.033
70 


20150.034
71 


20150.035
72 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Saari, thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Mr. Ron Bradley who is vice president of Gas 

Operations at PECO Energy. And you are testifying on behalf of 

the American Gas Association. Welcome, and you are recognized for 

5 minutes, Mr. Bradley. 

STATEMENT OF RON BRADLEY 

Mr. BRADLEY. Good morning, Chairman Whitfield and members 

of the committee. My name is Ron Bradley, and I serve as vice 

president of Gas Operations at PECO, which safely provides reliable electric and natural gas service to approximately two million 

customers in southeastern Pennsylvania. 

PECO is part of the Exelon family of companies. Exelon is the 

nation’s largest competitive energy provider serving more than 

eight million electric and natural gas customers in Illinois, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. Today, I am testifying on behalf of the 

American Gas Association which represents more than 200 local 

distribution companies, also known as LDCs. 

AGA members’ companies operate 2.5 million miles of underground pipeline safely delivering clean, affordable natural gas to 

more than 71 million customers. LDCs provide the last critical link 

in the energy delivery chain connecting interstate pipelines directly 

to homes and businesses. Our focus every day is ensuring that we 

keep the gas flowing safely and reliably. 

As part of an agreement with the Federal Government, most 

states assume primary responsibility for the safety and regulation 

of LDCs, as well as intrastate transmission pipelines. Many states 

adopt standards that exceed federal requirements. Additionally, 

our companies are in close contact with state pipeline safety inspectors which permit a greater number of inspections to occur than is 

required by federal law. 

In addition to a culture of compliance, LDCs embrace the culture 

of proactive, collaborative engagement. Each company employs 

trained safety professionals, provides safety training, conducts rigorous system inspections, testing, maintenance and repair, and replacement programs, and educates the public on natural gas safety. 

AGA’s commitment to enhancing safety adopted in 2011 provides 

a summary of these commitments beyond federal regulation. 

The commitment to enhancing safety has been modified several 

times to address new issues that have been identified and was recently modified to include actions to improve the safety of underground storage operations. The AGA has also developed numerous 

pipeline safety initiatives focused on raising the bar on safety including peer-to-peer reviews and best practice forums that share 

best practices and lessons learned throughout the industry. Each 

year, LDCs spent approximately $22 billion on safety. Approximately half of that on our voluntary actions. This number continues to escalate as work commences on newly approved accelerated pipeline replacement programs. 

Now turning to a review of the legislation. The Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement and Safety Act of 2006 and the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Creation, and Job Creation Act of 2011 created new programs to improve the safety of the industry. AGA 

member companies have implemented aspects of these programs eiVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:37 Feb 16, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-121 CHRIS
73 

ther voluntarily or through DOT regulation. However, many of 

these programs are in their infancy in terms of implementation, 

and we encourage Congress to allow these programs to develop and 

mature in order to realize their full impact. 

In the case of the unanimously passed 2011 Act, several regulations have yet to be promulgated or finalized. The progress that is 

being made is very important that the focus be on finishing the 

outstanding work. We commend the committee for emphasizing 

this in its initial draft. Layering new laws and regulation on to 

companies before existing regulations have been finalized and provided time to succeed creates uncertainty that undermines our 

shared safety goals. 

While we appreciate the committee’s efforts to put forward a bipartisan bill, we are supportive of most of the text. We are very 

concerned that Section 15 of the draft bill would allow a person to 

bring a civil action in a District Court of the United States for injunction against PHMSA for failure to perform any nondiscretionary duty, even if PHMSA was engaged in enforcing its mandatory obligations under the law. This would have a deleterious effect of undermining and thus weakening the federal regulatory 

oversight this committee seeks to enhance and could cause market 

uncertainty. 

Moreover, to the extent that PHMSA would have to dedicate resources and time to litigation or complying with a court order, it 

could significantly diminish the agency’s ability to work on other 

congressional priorities, thus negatively impacting pipeline safety. 

The creation of such a legal remedy could be used by individuals, 

however well intentioned, in a way that would be counter to the 

best interests of the nation, individual states, industry, and ultimately consumers while not necessarily enhancing safety. Thus, we 

respectfully urge the removal of Section 15 of the bill. The industry 

is already experiencing significant uncertainty regarding PHMSA’s 

implementation of outstanding mandates in the 2011 bill. 

Regarding replacement of cast iron mains, a focus of the 2011 

pipeline safety reauthorization. The quantity of these mains continues to steadily decline. As of today, overall cast iron mains 

makes up less than two percent of total mileage. Natural gas utilities are working with legislators and regulators to accelerate the 

replacement of these pipelines. To date, 39 states and the District 

of Columbia have adopted specific rate mechanisms that facilitate 

accelerated replacement of pipelines that are primary candidates 

for system enhancement. 

In addition to what I have highlighted, my written testimony 

provides updates on the industry’s efforts with regard to incident 

notification, data collection, and information sharing, and research 

and development. I am pleased to answer questions on these topics 

or any other topics that you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bradley follows:] 

74 


20150.036
75 


20150.037
76 


20150.038
77 


20150.039
78 


20150.040
79 


20150.041
80 


20150.042
81 


20150.043
82 


20150.044
83 


20150.045
84 


20150.046
85 


20150.047
86 


20150.048
87 


20150.103
88 


20150.104
89 


20150.105
90 


20150.106
91 


20150.107
92 


20150.108
93 


20150.109
94 


20150.110
95 


20150.111
96 


20150.112
97 


20150.113
98 


20150.114
99 


20150.115
100 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Bradley. Our next witness is Mr. 

Andrew Black. I am delighted to have you back at the Energy and 

Commerce Committee, Andy. He is president and CEO of the Association of Oil Pipelines and also, my understanding, testifying on 

behalf of API. So you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW BLACK 

Mr. BLACK. Thank you, chairman, ranking member. The Association of Oil Pipelines who deliver crude oil, refined products like 

gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel and natural gas liquids such as 

propane. As the chairman indicated, I am also testifying on behalf 

of the American Petroleum Institute. 

Our U.S. pipelines safely deliver more than 16.2 billion barrels 

of crude oil and energy products a year. Pipelines play a critical 

role in delivering energy to American workers and families. Americans use the energy our pipelines deliver in their cars and trucks 

to commute to work or drive on the job, provide rural heating and 

crop drying and support good paying manufacturing jobs. The average barrel of crude oil or petroleum products reaches its destination safely, by pipeline, greater than 99.999 percent of the time. 

Addressing Mr. McKinley’s question earlier, according to PHMSA 

date, significant liquids pipeline incidents that could affect highconsequence areas are down 8 percent over the last 5 years. Significant incidents per mile that are over 50 barrels in size are down 

19 percent over the last 5 years. But even with these positive pipeline safety performance numbers, the member companies of AOPL 

and API are constantly working to improve pipeline safety further. 

Last year, operators completed development of a number of industry-wide recommended practices and technical reports to improve our ability to detect pipeline cracking, integrate safety data, 

manage safety efforts holistically, manage leak detection programs, 

and better plan for and respond to pipeline emergencies. 

This year, we turn to implementation of these safety recommendations industry wide. A prime example is our effort to encourage and assist implementation of API Recommended Practice 

1173 for pipeline safety management systems. Recommended by 

the NTSB and developed in conjunction with PHMSA and state 

pipeline regulators, this tool is helping pipeline operators comprehensively manage all the safety efforts underway across the 

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

Now more pipeline operators are benefitting, too. 

This year, pipeline operators will also complete expansion of industry wide recommended practice on river crossings, develop a 

new one for construction quality management, and update industry-wide recommendations for pipeline integrity program management. This last safety improvement action brings us to last summer’s pipeline release near Refugio, California. We echoed Transportation Secretary Foxx calling the preliminary instant report 

from PHMSA ‘‘an important step forward that will help us learn 

what went wrong so that everyone involved can take action and ensure that it does not happen again.’’ Our members are committed 

to doing just that. 

101 

PHMSA’s preliminary factual findings could be described as the 

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

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

minimum, we know there is opportunity for further industry-wide 

discussion and perhaps guidance for those operators that use the 

specific type of pipe involved in that incident, insulated pipe transporting heated crude. As part of our update of this industry-wide 

integrity management guidance, we will ensure learnings from industry-wide review and PHMSA incident report recommendations 

are reviewed and incorporated where appropriate. The effort should 

be finished later this year, far more expeditiously than could occur 

through an agency notice and comment rulemaking process. 

Turning to the next reauthorization, there is still much left for 

PHMSA to do from the 2011 law. PHMSA is working to finalize a 

broad liquids pipeline rulemaking as the administrator said, and 

may propose a rulemaking on valves soon. 

We commend Congress for its recent oversight in PHMSA, which 

has resulted in the administration issuing several rulemaking proposals and promising additional proposals and we encourage your 

ongoing oversight. Pipeline operators have not stood by and instead 

have advanced safety initiatives on inspection technology, cracking, 

data integration, safety management, leak detection, and emergency response. With the numerous recent industry initiatives addressing current pipeline safety topics, and additional PHMSA regulatory actions still to come, we encourage Congress to reauthorize 

the pipeline safety program soon without adding significant new 

provisions. 

Upon a brief review of the committee’s discussion draft, AOPL 

and API would find it difficult to support the draft with the inclusion of Section 15. Private mandamus civil actions to compel agencies to perform certain duties have earned the moniker ‘‘sue and 

settle’’ because of their abuse at agencies such as EPA. A Chamber 

of Commerce report identified 60 cases of ‘‘sue and settle’’ lawsuits 

from 2009 to 2012 resulting in 100 new EPA regulations costing 

from tens of millions to billions of dollars each. ‘‘Sue and settle’’ circumvents public participation, dilutes congressional oversight, bypasses standard administration review and analysis, and it limits 

agency transparency. 

In January, the House expressed its concern with ‘‘sue and settle’’ abuse by passing H.R. 712, reforming these processes in legislation that sadly appears unlikely to become public law. We urge 

that Section 15 be removed from the draft. 

Thank you for inviting me here today and I look forward to answering any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Black follows:] 

102 


20150.049
103 


20150.050
104 


20150.051
105 


20150.052
106 


20150.053
107 


20150.054
108 


20150.055
109 


20150.056
110 


20150.057
111 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Black. Our next witness is Mr. 

Donald Santa who is president and CEO of the Interstate Natural 

Gas Association of America. 

Welcome back, Mr. Santa, and you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD SANTA 

Mr. SANTA. Good morning and thank you, Chairman Whitfield, 

Ranking Member Rush, and members of the subcommittee. My 

name is Donald Santa, and I am president and CEO of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, or INGAA. INGAA represents interstate natural gas transmission pipeline operators in 

the U.S. and Canada. The pipeline systems operated by INGAA’s 

24 member companies are analogous to the interstate highway system, transporting natural gas across state and regional boundaries. 

INGAA testified before this subcommittee last July regarding 

pipeline safety and reauthorization of the Pipeline Safety Act. In 

that testimony, I outlined INGAA’s safety commitments, undertaken in 2011, and the most recent amendments to the law that 

specifically affect natural gas transmission safety programs. I direct my testimony today to the specifics of the draft reauthorization 

bill now before the subcommittee. 

INGAA has consistently advocated three goals in connection with 

the pending reauthorization of the Pipeline Safety Act. These goals 

are first, establish authorized funding levels for the pipeline safety 

programs at PHMSA for the next 4 fiscal years; second, continue 

to focus PHMSA rulemaking resources on the completion of the remaining mandates from the 2011 reauthorization, with one exception below; and third, that exception, create federal minimum safety standards and regulations for underground natural gas storage 

facilities. 

The discussion draft meets these three goals. There is also very 

similar to the bill, S.2276, approved last December by the Senate 

Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. That legislation is now pending before the full Senate and may be approved as 

early as this week. We appreciate that this subcommittee’s discussion draft parallels the Senate bill in most respects because this 

will make it far easier to conference the two bills. 

A few quick points. First, the fiscal years covered by this authorization. The Senate legislation covers fiscal years 2016 through 

2019. This technically would be a 4-year authorization. As a practical matter, fiscal year 2016 has already been appropriated, and 

by the time this legislation is enacted, the current fiscal year will 

be close to an end. For this truly to be a 4-year authorization, 

INGAA suggests beginning with the fiscal year 2017 authorization 

or in the alternative, making the authorization effective through 

fiscal year 2020. 

Second, we agree with the manner in which the underground 

natural gas storage section was drafted and especially the clarification that PHMSA may delegate to a state the authority to regulate 

intrastate storage facilities. This provision has our support. 

Discussion draft, however, differs from the Senate bill in one important respect. Namely, the draft includes a provision that would 

allow an individual petition a federal district court to enjoin 

PHMSA in connection with that agency’s alleged failure to act. As 

112 

explained further in my written testimony, INGAA believes that 

this provision is ill-advised. It would allow the priorities of individual parties and the judgment of a federal district court judge to 

supplant the pipeline safety priorities and the allocation of agency 

resources established by PHMSA pursuant to the guidance provided by Congress. INGAA would seriously consider opposing the 

Pipeline Safety Bill if this provision were included. 

My written testimony includes comments on several other provisions in the draft bill which in the interest of time I will omit for 

my oral statement. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide INGAA’s 

views on the discussion draft. I would be happy to answer your 

questions at the appropriate time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Santa follows:] 

113 


20150.058
114 


20150.059
115 


20150.060
116 


20150.061
117 


20150.062
118 


20150.063
119 


20150.064
120 


20150.065
121 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Santa, and our next witness is 

Mr. Carl Weimer. 

Welcome back, Mr. Weimer, and he is testifying on behalf of the 

Pipeline Safety Trust where he is the executive director, and you 

are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF CARL WEIMER 

Mr. WEIMER. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Whitfield, 

Ranking Member Rush, and members of the committee. Thank you 

for inviting me to speak today on the important subject of pipeline 

safety. 

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

asked by the federal courts to create a watchdog organization over 

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

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

incidents over the past decade driven primarily by releases from 

liquid pipelines from causes well within pipeline operators’ control, 

makes us sometimes question whether our message is being heard. 

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

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

into Red Butte Creek in Salt Lake City. Mr. Hayes, a school teacher, was raising his family in a home that set on the banks of Red 

Butte Creek and he was extremely concerned about the possible 

long term health effects to the people in that area who were not 

evacuated immediately and experienced many different health 

symptoms associated with exposure to crude oil. He pushed hard 

for better emergency response and for someone to follow up with 

a study to determine whether people so exposed would experience 

any long term health problems. No one ever did such a study and 

in a tragic twist of fate, Mr. Hayes came down with a rare lung 

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

The need for studies on the health effects of exposure to oil spills 

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

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

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

implement various mandates and moved too slowly on regulatory 

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

fair game at such hearings, today we would like to focus our testimony on how the pipeline safety system that Congress has created 

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

PHMSA can only implement rules that Congress authorizes them 

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

changed to remove unnecessary barriers to more effective and efficient pipeline safety. The pipeline safety statutes are the responsibility of Congress and today we will speak to issues where Congress needs to act if there is a real desire to improve pipeline safety 

Some of the things that Congress could change fairly easily 

would be to provide PHMSA with emergency order authority like 

other transportation agencies have. This would allow PHMSA to 

quickly correct dangerous industry-wide problems such as a lack of 

minimum rules for underground gas storage or the lack of valid 

verification of maximum allowable operating pressures. At the 

122 

same time, by eliminating the unique and duplicative cost benefit 

requirement in the program statute, normal rulemakings could proceed at more than the current glacial speed. 

Congress also needs to harmonize the criminal penalty section of 

PHMSA’s statutes so in the rare case when pipeline companies 

willfully or recklessly cause harm to people or the environment, 

they can be prosecuted as is necessary. And Congress should also 

add a strong mandamus clause as suggested in this committee’s 

working draft bill to allow the federal courts to force PHMSA to 

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

As I mentioned earlier, the National Academy of Sciences recently completed a congressionally-mandated study that showed 

there were a number of serious issues with the way that PHMSA 

oversees spill response planning and the contents of those plans. 

We hope you will rapidly move to ensure that PHMSA is reviewing 

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

agencies do and require companies to provide clear information so 

first responders know what they are up against. 

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

help alleviate the lack of information about how to better protect 

people from the short and long term health effects of when pipelines fail. 

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

various reauthorization bills and hope you can address these concerns in your own bill. In particular, we think the wording in the 

statutory preference section of your draft bill may slow needed 

rules. We also think the language regarding underground gas storage needs to be clarified to ensure an open rulemaking process 

happens as soon as possible and that whatever is passed allows 

states to set stricter standards for facilities within their borders. 

And finally, we think the language in the Senate bill regarding 

small LNG facilities pushes PHMSA too much to rely on industrydeveloped standards and hard to enforce risk based systems. 

I see my time is about up, so I thank you for this opportunity 

to testify today and I would be glad to answer any questions now 

or in the future. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weimer follows:] 

123 


20150.066
124 


20150.067
125 


20150.068
126 


20150.069
127 


20150.070
128 


20150.071
129 


20150.072
130 


20150.073
131 


20150.074
132 


20150.075
133 


20150.076
134 


20150.077
135 


20150.078
136 


20150.079
137 


20150.080
138 


20150.081
139 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Weimer, thank you, and thank all of you for 

your testimony. And at this time I will recognize Mr. Olson of 

Texas for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair for his courtesies. And welcome to 

our witnesses. A special welcome to Mr. Black and Mr. Santa. 

As we all know, the first exports of American crude oil left Corpus Christi a few weeks ago and this week the first exports of 

American liquefied natural gas left Texas and Louisiana this week 

as well. Thank you, thank you, thank you. That is American liquid 

freedom going to Latin America and going to Europe. You guys are 

rock stars back home because of that. 

But let us talk about corrosion. In the investigation of the 2015 

pipeline spill at Refugio Beach in California, they found corrosion 

in the pipeline. That fact should be no surprise. Obsolete gas pipelines and liquid pipes operate in tough environments. Soil corrodes. 

The product within the pipeline corrodes. And these aren’t always 

brand-new pipes. 

As I saw in our Navy, corrosion starts from day one. In fact, they 

attack it every day with what is called a paint and chip detail. The 

young sailors have a scraper, a bucket of paint, and a brush and 

go all over the ship trying to curtail corrosion. It is a big challenge. 

So can you both, please, with you Mr. Black and Mr. Santa, discuss how you plan to control corrosion in your pipelines? Feel free. 

Big question, I know. 

Mr. BLACK. Corrosion may have been the biggest target of the 

modern integrity management regulations and it has been a success. Internal and external corrosion is down by greater than 50 

percent. I think there is a 70 percent over 10 years and I am happy 

to get that fact for you. 

Mr. OLSON. Thank you. 

Mr. BLACK. External corrosion has been reduced greatly by the 

practice of cathodic protection in pressing the current on to the 

pipeline and turning the pipeline into a cathode and anode, suffers 

the corrosion consequences. Internal corrosion has been worked on 

by cleaning pigs and then of course, the in-line inspection. 

Mr. OLSON. A smart pig is right across the hall, I think, actually. 

A smart pig is there right now. 

Mr. BLACK. Yes, exactly. They are supposed to gather that information. Like you, we are concerned by what we heard in the 

PHMSA initial incident report and we are eager, as an industry to 

get the final results on that so that we can develop our industrywide recommendations to operators to address corrosion. 

We have already committed to updating API Recommended Practice 1160, Pipeline Integrity Program Management, to address the 

properties related to the special type of pipe, heated, insulated 

pipe, transporting heated crude. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Santa, natural gas people, your pipelines, any 

concerns about corrosion, but what is your biggest—what is your 

plan to deal with corrosion to control it? 

Mr. SANTA. First, as Mr. Black said, I think we have a success 

story here. As a result of the Integrity Management Programs that 

were prescribed by Congress, and then PHMSA acting pursuant to 

that, corrosion incidents on interstate pipelines are down dramatically, as a result of the Integrity Management Program. 

140 

As you noted in setting up your question, that corrosion has a 

lot more to do with the environment in which the pipeline exists 

and not necessarily the age of the pipeline, the important point 

here is a pipe, regardless of its age, to ensure that it is fit for service. 

As a result of fulfilling the mandates in the regulations on integrity management, in fact, interstate pipelines have tested far greater mileage than that which is mandated just because of the nature 

of where these devices are inserted and removed from the pipelines. 

As part of INGAA’s voluntary commitments that were made in 

2011, INGAA’s members committed to expanding the scope of integrity management practices and we also expect to see the expansion of integrity management addressed as part of the upcoming 

PHMSA rulemaking on natural gas transmission pipelines. 

Mr. OLSON. So still the safest way to transport liquids is with 

pipelines pure and simple. 

Mr. SANTA. Yes. 

Mr. OLSON. Another question for you, Mr. Black. PHMSA is looking to require remotely operated automatic shutoff valves in pipelines in the future. GAO has done a report on that and found that 

there are some safety concerns in some cases where they are used 

on liquid pipelines. What are your thoughts on automatic shutoff 

valves and what issues do they pose for liquid lines? 

Mr. BLACK. Well, I would like to distinguish automatic acting 

from automated valves, a practice in liquid pipelines construction 

today is to use remote controlled automated valves to safely shutdown a pipeline in the event that the pipeline needs to be shut 

down. Self-operating, self-actuating automatic shutoff valves cause 

safety concerns. GAO found that there can be a pressure build up 

with an automatic valve closing quickly and that can damage the 

pipeline. 

We reviewed and found nine incidents caused by conditions similar to an automatic shutoff valve closing abruptly, one of which had 

more than 400 barrels put along the right of way. So remote controlled, automated shutoff valves are important to be used in liquids pipelines and are. 

Mr. OLSON. I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. At this time 

I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Weimer, in your testimony you state that reauthorization should include directing 

PHMSA to conduct a study with the National Academy of Sciences 

to better understand the potential long term health benefits from 

pipeline failures and provide recommendations for threshold levels 

in order to better inform the evacuation decisions and the equipment necessary to measure such thresholds as part of the spill response plan. 

How did you come to this conclusion and why do you think this 

issue is so important that Congress should address it in the upcoming reauthorization bill? 

Mr. WEIMER. Yes, thank you for the question. We came to that 

conclusion from a number of sources. The recent National Academy 

of Sciences study mentioned the need for greater studies on both 

141 

human and environmental impacts of crude oil spills. But we have 

seen it over and over again after incidents that have happened in 

the last few years. The first one that I became aware of was the 

one I mentioned in my testimony in Salt Lake City. A number of 

people and their children got quite ill after a spill when they 

weren’t evacuated. There was general confusion at that spill of who 

was in charge, whether it was the local health department, whether they had equipment to measure the vapors and what people 

were breathing and when evacuation should occur. We saw similar 

things in Michigan after the big spill into the Kalamazoo River. 

And then in Mayflower, Arkansas when crude oil ran through a 

neighborhood there, we saw the types of illnesses. 

Each state seems to have different thresholds for when they 

might evacuate people. There seems to be confusion who is in 

charge in those on-going incidents of those spills and those same 

health effects. Regardless of the type of crude oil has led us to the 

desire, along with the National Academy of Sciences that such a 

study be done to clarify what equipment needs to be on scene, how 

quickly and what those thresholds should be measured at. 

Mr. RUSH. That is pretty alarming, and it seems as though we 

are—that is a real nightmare of a thought that you have a pipeline 

rupture and not have any idea about its effect on your family’s 

health. That is pretty alarming. 

Are communities around this nation, are they generally well informed and educated about pipeline projects and the number of 

pipelines and the capacity of things and what really is being transmitted through those pipelines? Are they aware about the benefits 

of these pipelines and potential costs of these pipelines and if they 

are not, then what are some of the tools that we can use to help 

spread awareness among the American people regarding these 

pipelines? 

Mr. WEIMER. Yes, thank you again for that question. I think 

communities are becoming more aware. Unfortunately, the communities that seem to pay attention are the ones where there has 

been an incident, so it is after the fact. 

PHMSA has done a very good job, actually, putting a lot of information available on their Web site in trying to push out information, but it still hasn’t sunk in. A lot of it falls on the industry. 

There is a lot of emphasis from the industry to work with the local 

communities to make sure emergency response and emergency 

plans are in place. But we need the communities to pay attention 

to that. 

There is a lot of lack of information. I am an elected official in 

the country where I am from and I have been on the Emergency 

Planning Committee. When I ask these questions about do we have 

MSDS sheets like the National Academy of Sciences asked for or 

do we have monitoring equipment that will be put in place quickly 

if there is an incident, most of the emergency planners in my community and other places we have checked with just don’t have that 

information. So there need to be more proactive efforts by all of us 

involved to make sure local governments are paying attention. 

Mr. RUSH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have run out of 

time. 

142 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. I will recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions. I had asked Administrator 

Dominguez as she was leaving, what is a reportable incident? And 

I would ask those of you on the panel when are you required to 

report an incident to PHMSA? Do you know, Mr. Weimer? 

Mr. WEIMER. It is funny that you ask that question because Mr. 

Black and I were joking about that because we are both on a committee with PHMSA working on indicators and there is a number 

of different reporting requirements depending—there are serious 

incidents. That is when somebody gets killed or hospitalized. Those 

number of incidents have actually been declining so that is a good 

trend. There are significant incidents. That is when you do $50,000 

worth of damage, property damage, you kill or injure somebody or 

you spill a certain amount. I think it is like 50 barrels for liquid 

pipeline. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Fifty barrels? 

Mr. WEIMER. Fifty barrels, a couple thousand gallons. That 

would be considered a significant incident or if there is an explosion or fire. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Mr. WEIMER. And then there are reportable incidents and I think 

that is as low as five barrels or maybe even five gallons for hazardous liquid pipeline. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK, so there is like three or four different levels, 

OK. 

Mr. BRADLEY. Those thresholds apply to natural gas as well. 

They rack up to the dollar amount. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. 

Mr. SANTA. Let me add to Mr. Bradley’s point there that in some 

ways sometimes that leads to nonsensical results because if you 

think about the variability of natural gas or oil commodity prices, 

not natural gas prices. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes. 

Mr. SANTA. And if in reporting the damage you are reporting the 

dollar value of the gas that was emitted, well, that is going to be 

a far greater value when the price of gas is a dollar versus when 

it may be four dollars. So probably something there to ensure 

greater consistency to really measure what are the tangible dangers or effects rather than something that depends upon the commodity price that makes sense. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And Mr. Black, how many miles of oil pipeline 

do we have in the U.S.? 

Mr. BLACK. One hundred ninety-nine thousand of liquids, oil, refined products, natural gas liquids, and CO2, yes, sir. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And natural gas? 

Mr. SANTA. Natural gas transmission pipelines, it is over 300,000 

miles, about 220,000 interstate. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And how much of the crude oil that has been 

transported through pipelines is heated? 

Mr. BLACK. Very little. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Very little? 

Mr. BLACK. Only if it is necessary. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. One comment I want to make because as 

you notice, the Section 15 of our draft in parentheses they have got 

143 

this private action of suit. And I noticed after the San Bruno incident, I think maybe I read this in your testimony, Mr. Weimer, 

where the City of San Francisco sued in federal court asking that 

the federal court require PHMSA to reject the State of California 

certification that the pipeline system met the federal standards. 

And I had a little bit of a problem with that myself because that 

is the mission of PHMSA to make sure that—so here you have the 

City of San Francisco suing the State of California basically, as 

well as the Federal Government, asking a federal judge to mandate 

that they not accept a certification from the state. 

So I have a real problem with Section 15 myself and the ‘‘sue and 

settle’’ for example at EPA has really been a major headache because what we see, third parties file the suit. They enter into a settlement with EPA and its lawyers or Justice and the states affected 

by those suits are not able to even participate in the settlements 

which I find unacceptable. 

And so I agree with the three of you that this is a real issue and 

having said that, I mean I am going to try to not include this, but 

having said that I have got 50 seconds left and I know Mr. Weimer 

disagrees, so I will turn it over to you to make your argument. 

Mr. WEIMER. All right, thank you for that. Yes, we saw that after 

the California, the San Bruno incident you mentioned. I think the 

City of San Francisco and others—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Is your microphone on? 

Mr. WEIMER. Yes. Were pretty aghast at the way that the California Public Utility Commission had overseen the law over the 

past few years. There is still, I think, even criminal investigations 

going because the connections between the California Public Utility 

Commission and the industry out there. And that led San Francisco to file that. 

We are agnostic on the arguments that San Francisco made, but 

when we saw the federal court step in and try to throw out the 

idea that the citizens or local governments could go to court to try 

to force PHMSA to do what their jobs requires them to do that is 

when we thought it was important. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. My time has expired. At this time, 

I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I thank the chairman. I thank the panelists for coming in here today. 

I am going to start with you, Mr. Weimer. Do you believe that 

there is adequate representation across all interested parties on 

the advisory committees at PHMSA? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Yes. The advisory committees are made up of 

the three groups, regulators, the public, and the industry. And I 

think the way it is designed it is pretty well, the slots don’t always 

get filled in a timely manner. Like at our last Technical Committee 

meeting when we were talking about the liquids rule, there were 

still two public slots that were open, so it would be nice before 

major rules are considered if all the slots are filled. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. How about the actual staff of PHMSA? Is there 

adequate staffing or is there an urgent need to fill more positions? 

Mr. WEIMER. I think Congress has given them a huge budget increase that allowed them to add over a hundred new inspectors. 

144 

That was good. And they are also working on some program enhancements. So I think time will tell over the next couple of years 

whether they can fill those slots and whether that is an adequate 

number. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, in your testimony you mentioned something about cost benefit analysis. Could you expand on that discussion a little bit, please? 

Mr. WEIMER. Sure. I think it was back in the ’90s. It might have 

been the 1996 Act. Congress put in a cost benefit requirement in 

the pipeline statute. As far as we can determine, this is the only 

administration that has kind of this double cost benefit, both in the 

statute and also then when the rules go to OMB. Talking with a 

number of people that do those things, they really think that can 

kind of slow down the process and as everybody on this committee 

has mentioned you know, PHMSA has been kind of slow to meet 

some of these. So since all of the rules that go to OMB have to go 

through a cost benefit, this double cost benefit analysis early on 

and then when it goes to OMB may be slowing down rules unnecessarily. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Would industry object if the cost benefit requirements were eased? 

Mr. WEIMER. You would probably have to ask them. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Santa? 

Mr. SANTA. Yes, Mr. McNerney. I would suggest that before the 

committee amend the law or propose to amend the law to address 

that that it examine whether there, in fact, have been any instances in which the statutory cost benefit analysis has added to 

the time and the burden. I would agree that the amount of time 

that it takes to get a rule through OMB is very troublesome and 

that that ought to be addressed and that that often seems to reflect 

the priorities of a particular administration that is in office where 

some rules go through very, very quickly and others get terribly 

bogged down. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Mr. Black, you said that you felt Congress 

should pass the law pretty much as it is now in the discussion 

draft form. At least that is what I understood. 

Mr. BLACK. Without adding significant new mandates to 

PHMSA, yes, sir. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. So mandates. Because I was going to say Administrator Dominguez, her one recommendation to me was that 

they should have additional authority to react to critical situations. 

Would you agree with that or not? 

Mr. BLACK. Well, if PHMSA is aware of some safety information 

like the defective fittings she mentioned, we encourage them to get 

that word out as soon as possible. They have got that process right 

now through the advisory bulletin process and I can tell you I have 

seen first-hand how important those advisory bulletins are to the 

industry. I am not aware of any incidents that would have been 

avoided in the past if emergency order authority was in place. We 

are ready to look at a proposal, but we would think it should have 

a high standard. It should address emergency conditions that pose 

imminent threats or widespread harm, should be narrow in scope, 

should be subject to expedited review. Happy to look. 

145 

Mr. MCNERNEY. There is no doubt in my mind that you all and 

industry want to prevent incidents. There is no doubt in my mind 

about it and that you will take steps to do that, but I have a feeling 

that if it is left to industry, it will tend to be optimistic and you 

need a little oversight to make sure the optimism doesn’t cause 

problems. 

Mr. BLACK. If PHMSA is aware of information like a defect, we 

want to hear about it as soon as possible. Their quickest way to 

get that information out is the advisory bulletin process. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. And not only that, creating rules that—high 

standards that cause industry to have safety standards that prevent incidents. 

What is the typical industry response to an advisory bulletin by 

PHMSA, Mr. Black? 

Mr. BLACK. Read very carefully. We have industry groups, employees working on pipeline safety issues focusing on improvement 

and they are dissecting those very closely. We have got instances 

of advisory bulletins in the last couple of years that have led to operators getting that aha moment and taking that back to their companies. 

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

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And thanks very much to the 

panel for being here today. 

Mr. Santa, if I could start with a few questions for you. Can you 

comment on how your members use the 811 Dial Before You Dig 

program and do you believe that it would be helpful to incorporate 

new technologies or best practices to improve the communication 

between the stakeholders from receipt of excavation notification 

until successful completion of the excavation? 

Mr. SANTA. Mr. Latta, INGAA’s members strongly support 811. 

One of the significant causes of pipeline incidents is excavation 

damage and so we very strongly support 811 and strong programs 

to ensure that all excavators are subject to such programs. 

If there are specific proposals on how via using technology, the 

effectiveness of those programs can be improved, I think we would 

be very interested in hearing that. 

Mr. LATTA. Let me follow up with that. How can the Federal 

Government help advance the adoption of developing those technologies? Are there technologies out there that we should be doing, 

the Federal Government should be helping to advance? 

Mr. SANTA. Well, PHMSA has dollars in its budget that it can 

use at its own discretion for research and development. Also, there 

is the ability to do cost-shared research and development with the 

industry since we all share the goal of improved pipeline safety and 

developing technologies that can prove that. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. Mr. Black, how do pipeline operators use 

in-line inspection, the so-called smart pig technology to find problems in their pipelines? 

Mr. BLACK. Well, you put this cylinder-shape robot inside the 

pipeline and push it through with the force of the liquid and it collects information about the properties of the pipeline, terabytes of 

information. That information is then taken out of the smart pig 

146 

and it is analyzed by a third party vendor working with the pipeline operator to determine what features need to be investigated. 

They follow industry practices and PHMSA regulations about 

which features need to be uncovered and inspected in person by a 

pipeline to determine whether there needs to be a repair or whether it is just an issue that hasn’t become a problem yet. The results 

of this which cost more than $2.2 billion in 2014, has been a dramatic decrease in corrosion-related incidents and in all types of incidents since modern integrity management practices were put into 

place. 

Mr. LATTA. So you are saying that the technology we have today 

has really increased the ability to find those cracks that are out 

there in the pipeline? 

Mr. BLACK. Yes. It is finding more. That is more for pipeline operators and these third-party vendors to look at. Now the challenge 

is taking all of this information, finding out what are those true 

positives that need to be addressed and finding those issues and repairing them before they become a problem. 

Mr. LATTA. Let me ask this also. In the draft bill that we have 

here today, there is a provision for the use of the smart pigs not 

less than once every 12 months for certain deep water pipelines. Is 

that a reasonable interval for that? 

Mr. BLACK. It would address pipeline water crossings of greater 

than 150. We would not support that being applied to a greater set 

of pipelines and I will explain why. Right now, pipeline operators 

are required to assess the condition of their pipelines and to 

prioritize areas based on risk. Determining a 1 year inspection 

schedule is not really supported by the conditions of that pipeline. 

It is not reported by what has been found. It is arbitrary. If that 

is to be expanded, we would find that it is diverting safety dollars 

from areas of greater risk. 

One year in pipeline integrity management for inspections is 

probably too soon. Any time that pipeline operator does that smart 

pig and gets that result, some features that they find require analysis within a year. Some are immediate. But to run a smart pig 

every year, you may not learn that much new from year to year. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 

yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the 

chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask a couple of questions of Mr. Weimer. In Ms. Dominguez’ testimony, she 

requested that Congress give PHMSA emergency order authority. 

And PHMSA already has corrective action authority that allows it 

to direct a single operator to take action to protect life, property, 

and the environment. But as I understand it, emergency order authority would allow the secretary to take such action on an industry-wide basis. Seems like a common-sense tool for the agency to 

have. I am kind of shocked that they don’t have it already. 

Could you just please talk more about this request and specifically what would the benefits of emergency order authority be for 

communities to which pipelines are routed? For instance, between 

2007 and ’09, pipe was being produced for market that did meet 

147 

industry standards. In your opinion, would this have been a situation in which emergency order authority would have been helpful, 

just as an example? 

Mr. WEIMER. Yes. Thank you for the question. I think you hit the 

point right on the nose, that there is a number of issues that come 

up that are found because of an incident on a specific pipeline. And 

PHMSA has the authority to order that specific pipeline to change 

their ways, but currently they don’t have the authority to change, 

order the whole industry, nationwide, to change things. Whether it 

is pipeline that wasn’t made to specs, that I think you were mentioning that came to light a few years ago, the fittings that Ms. 

Dominguez mentioned or other serious things that become obvious 

that it is a nationwide problem, at this point they have to go 

through a rulemaking that can take years as we have seen. They 

do have the ability to put out advisory bulletins like Mr. Black 

mentioned, but the industry is a broad spectrum of different people 

and while we think most of the industry pays attention to the advisory bulletins, there may be some within the industry that don’t. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right, thank you. And then a second topic deals 

with the TAG grants. The Pipeline Safety Information Technical 

Assistant Grants are very important to me and a number of members. I think you know that the grants came into being as a compromise in 2002 after this committee reached an impasse on rightto-know language for pipeline inspection data. And I, for one, think 

we still need a strong right-to-know provision in law. If we have 

that, I think it would be appropriate to discuss changes to the TAG 

grant program. The fact is that we don’t have the right to know 

in the statute, so we need these grants in order for communities 

to have access to the technical expertise and info they need to truly 

understand pipeline risks in their area. 

A few minutes ago, my colleague, Mr. Mullin, raised some concerns about the TAG grants and I would like to give you a chance 

to respond to those concerns. First, does the Pipeline Safety Act 

allow TAG grants to be used for lobbying? 

Mr. WEIMER. Well, I think specific to the statute, there are two 

things that are precluded from use of the money. One is lobbying. 

You are not allowed to use any of the TAG grant money for lobbying and you are not allowed to use it for any type of lawsuit 

against a pipeline company. 

Mr. PALLONE. So the answer is no, it can’t be used for lobbying. 

It can’t be used for litigation. 

Mr. WEIMER. Correct. 

Mr. PALLONE. Is there any evidence of a widespread abuse of 

TAG grants or do the majority of such grants go for useful, lawful 

purposes? 

Mr. WEIMER. Well, there has been over 160 TAG grants that 

have been let out over the course of the program. I am certainly 

not knowledgeable of all of those, but I don’t know of any specific 

grants that have gone toward lobbying or lawsuits. Most of them 

have been used by local governments, local communities, looking at 

improving safety through GIS works, emergency response, looking 

at specific issues and not for lobbying or lawsuits. 

Mr. PALLONE. My final question is by allowing communities to 

hire experts to obtain independent pipeline safety assessments, 

148 

doesn’t that help everyone, industry included, by ensuring that 

there is real, credible data out there on a pipeline? I mean that is 

what these TAG grants are all about, right? 

Mr. WEIMER. Yes, absolutely. And we certainly have seen evidence of that. We were involved with a TAG grant from a group 

that got a TAG grant in California this past year and they had a 

concern about a hazardous liquid pipeline that ran through their 

community. Once we looked at the incidents from that pipeline and 

went and met with that community, we kind of assured them that 

that pipeline wasn’t as big a deal as perhaps working with the local 

governments in that community to ensure that they are dealing 

with emergency response correctly. Their concerns for that particular pipeline were kind of overblown once we shared the correct 

information with them. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thanks a lot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. This time I recognize 

the gentlelady from California, Ms. Capps, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all of 

our witnesses for your testimonies today. Throughout the course of 

this hearing, we have heard over and over about the need to maximize the safety of natural gas and hazardous liquid infrastructure. 

The truth is that far too many of us have had direct experience 

with a devastating pipeline or storage facility incident that has led 

to significant harm to public health, the environment, or the local 

economy. And in every case, just as it did in my district in response 

to the Plains spill this last May, these incidents highlight inadequacy in an existing management requirement. As we learn from 

these tragedies, it is critical that we apply this knowledge to make 

all of our communities safer. 

Mr. Weimer, you mentioned—my questions are addressed to you, 

Mr. Weimer. You mentioned in your testimony that the number of 

pipeline incidents has been steadily increasing over the past 10 

years. Can you elaborate on a few? And I have several questions, 

so you can make it just one or two, what are the causes leading 

to this increased number that we are experiencing? Does the abundance of aging and outdated infrastructure have anything to do 

with the uptick in incidents? 

Mr. WEIMER. Yes, thank you for the question. And there was a 

graph in my written testimony. 

Ms. CAPPS. Right. 

Mr. WEIMER. That showed that the significant incidents on liquid 

pipelines has been increasing. It is again one of those measurement 

things about what are the things that make up incidents, but there 

certainly has been a rash of big incidents like the one that happened in your own district, the Marshall, Michigan spill; the one 

in Mayflower, Arkansas that kind of brought this to a head. 

The major causes, when you look at the PHMSA data are things 

within pipeline operators’ control, things like use and operation of 

the pipeline, corrosion and bad equipment. 

Ms. CAPPS. In other words, they are preventable. As a follow-up, 

can you elaborate on how emergency order authorizations could 

help ensure that systemic issues in pipeline infrastructure could be 

responded to in a more timely manner? As you know, there was 

quite a significant time lag between the start of this spill and a reVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:37 Feb 16, 2017 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00154 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 114\114-121 CHRIS
149 

sponse, even though by chance, emergency responders were very 

nearby. 

Mr. WEIMER. Yes, clearly, if PHMSA had emergency order authority it could help in situations where they learn something. Like 

the pipeline that failed in your own district, there is evidence coming out now and it is not for sure yet, that because that was an 

insulated pipeline that may have affected that pipeline differently. 

Ms. CAPPS. Yes. 

Mr. WEIMER. If it turns out that is the truth, an emergency order 

would allow PHMSA to correct that problem nationally. 

Ms. CAPPS. Exactly. Well, you have led to a topic that we should 

be addressing here in our committee. 

Now I want to turn to the need for improved response planning 

to quickly and adequately react to spills when they do occur. Without up to date and appropriate response plans in place is it possible 

to respond to incidents such as pipeline failures and spills? In your 

view, what must all response plans include and when should these 

plans be updated, for example, in response to changing conditions 

or new knowledge to ensure that they are both adequate and current? That is a big question. I am sorry, but you can answer quickly and then respond in writing for the record, if you would. 

Mr. WEIMER. Sure. There is a number of things. The National 

Academy of Sciences pointed out that PHMSA mainly looks at 

these response plans for completeness, not for effectiveness. 

Ms. CAPPS. Right. 

Mr. WEIMER. They need to change that. They need to ensure 

more testing. 

Ms. CAPPS. Thank you. And finally, you touched on a lack of 

stringent criminal penalties with regard to violations in pipeline 

safety. Are the current criminal and civil penalties regarding pipeline safety adequate to dissuade operators, especially the bad actors from committing violations? Can you elaborate on the need to 

expand upon existing penalties? I hope you can. 

Mr. WEIMER. Sure. The language currently in the pipeline safety 

statute is different than what it is on the hazmat side for PHMSA 

where they include recklessness as one of the things that can be 

prosecuted. We think it should be harmonized with what they have 

on the hazmat side and with what a lot of other safety agencies 

also have. 

Ms. CAPPS. And again, Mr. Chairman, I hope we can follow up 

with discussion of some of these topics. 

I appreciate your answers to my questions. It is clear there are 

many avenues for improving upon existing pipeline regulations. It 

is also clear to me that we must ensure that PHMSA has the necessary tools to make these changes, including those that have yet 

to be implemented from the last reauthorization to minimize risks 

associated with natural gas and hazardous liquid infrastructure. 

Once again, I would like to reiterate that I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman and ranking member to continue to improve upon the draft that we have so that we can ensure that we are crafting legislation that will minimize the frequency and impact of all future spills and protect our communities. 

Thank you and I yield back 3 seconds. 

150 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you for yielding back 3 seconds. I want 

to thank all of you for joining us today. We look forward to continuing dialogue as we move forward on this legislation. 

And Mr. Saari, we didn’t have a lot of questions for you, but we 

did pay attention to your testimony and do appreciate your bringing to the forefront the state grant issue and the adequate compensation to the states. And particularly in Michigan, I guess you 

all have more underground storage of natural gas than any state 

in the country is my understanding. 

But anyway, that will conclude today’s hearing. We will keep the 

record open for 10 days. And I would like to enter into the record 

a statement from American Public Gas Association, as well as letters from Representative Capps to PHMSA, dated February 29, 

2016, regarding the Plains pipeline accident in California. Without 

objection, it is entered into the record. 

And thank you all again, and that concludes today’s hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

151 


20150.082
152 


20150.083
153 


20150.084
154 


20150.085
155 


20150.086
156 


20150.087
157 


20150.088
158 


20150.089
159 


20150.090
160 


20150.091
161 


20150.092
162 


20150.093
163 


20150.094
164 


20150.095
165 


20150.096
166 


20150.097
167 


20150.098
168 


20150.099
169 


20150.100
170 


20150.101
171 


20150.102
172 

Æ 


20150.103