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

23–821PDF 2017

S. HRG. 112–955 

YELLOWSTONE RIVER OIL SPILL OVERSIGHT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 20, 2011 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

MAX BAUCUS, Montana, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTRENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

BARBARA BOXER, California, (ex officio) 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma, (ex officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JULY 20, 2011 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana .............................. 1 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 52 

Inhofe, Hon. James, M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 60 

WITNESSES 

Perciasepe, Hon. Robert, Deputy Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................................................................... 2 

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

Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation ............................ 11 

Kennedy, Hon. Bill, Commissioner, District Three, Yellowstone County, Montana ....................................................................................................................... 27 

Pruessing, Gary W., President, Exxonmobil Pipeline Company, Exxonmobil 

Corporation ........................................................................................................... 35 

Mcburney, Scott, Montana Landowner .................................................................. 40 

(1) 

YELLOWSTONE RIVER OIL SPILL OVERSIGHT 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, Washington, DC. 

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

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Max Baucus(chairman of 

the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Baucus, Lautenberg and Vitter. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA 

Senator BAUCUS. I call this hearing today to shine a bright light 

on a dark event, the oil spill in the Yellowstone River on July 1st. 

Montanans have suffered two disasters on the Yellowstone this 

year: devastating floods and spilled oil. The evidence shows that 

they are related, but there is no excuse for what happened on July 

1st. 

As Montanans, we love our State because of its wonderful rivers. 

The Yellowstone is God’s country and it has trout to prove it. I 

have seen people come visit Montana, be transformed the first time 

they cast a fly in the Yellowstone. We raise food and we raise families on this river. And I might add it is the longest unobstructed 

river in the United States. It starts down at the Yellowstone Park 

and then moves, flows north of the Paradise Valley and makes a 

right-hand turn and then flows toward Billings and then joins the 

Missouri just the other side of the North Dakota border, the longest unobstructed river in the United States and Montanans are 

very proud of that. 

But Montana also has good-paying jobs and we can drive to our 

favorite fishing holes. We can do that because of the oil in our pipelines, oil to refineries and then the gas pumps. These are just the 

facts. 

Water is our most sacred resource and oil is our most basic fuel. 

Montana is rich in pristine waters and rich in energy and we cannot let them mix. 

Today, we will examine what happened before and what happened after the spill; what went right and what could have been 

improved. Our first priority is getting this spill cleaned up and getting it cleaned up now. So I want to make sure that the Yellowstone is being restored immediately for everyone that depends on 

it. Just as important is that Montana landowners be made whole. 

This means a fast and effective cleanse process and it also means 

2 

a long-term commitment that Exxon will be there years down the 

road if the value of the land remains damaged by this spill. 

And that commitment must include a plan to compensate our 

farmers and ranchers for potential long-term impacts on the crops 

they depend on to make a living. 

And finally, we will look for potential lessons to be learned. We 

will ask tough questions about what happened, whether it could 

have been prevented. Were the effects of flooding in the Yellowstone properly considered when the Silvertip pipeline was designed? Is the pipeline operated with the specific characteristics of 

the Yellowstone in mind? This was not the first flood in Montana. 

It will not be the last. 

We also know that there are many other rivers crossed by pipelines in Montana. So I want to know what can be done to make 

sure this never happens again. 

It is also very important to me that Montanans have a voice in 

this process. I am proud we have two fellow Montanans here today. 

They are here today to share their stories and their insights. And 

to folks that are watching back home, we want to hear from you 

as well. 

Senator BAUCUS. The official congressional Record will stay open 

for 2 weeks. Please give my office a call or send us an email to 

make sure your written comments are included in the record. 

I look forward to the hearing. To all our witnesses, thank you 

very much for coming. I understand that Commissioner Bill Kennedy just got in on the red-eye from Montana. Montana is not next 

door. It is a little ways away. So thank you very much for coming. 

And so thank you very much. 

All right. If any of the Members want to make statements? 

I will begin with Mr. Perciasepe. Bob Perciasepe is someone I 

have known for years. I have a high regard for him, as he worked 

for the EPA. Bob Perciasepe is the Deputy Administrator of the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

We also have with us Hon. Cynthia Quarterman, Administrator 

of the Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration with 

the Department of Transportation on our first panel. 

Our second panel includes Scott McBurney, a landowner in Montana. Thank you, Scott, for coming. And also Gary Pruessing, who 

is President of ExxonMobil Pipeline Company with, of course, 

Exxon. 

So Mr. Perciasepe, why don’t you begin first. And you are on the 

record, and just summarize for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT PERCIASEPE, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. OK. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting us 

today and we are happy to be here to discuss the role and activities 

of USEPA regarding the ExxonMobil pipeline break into the Yellowstone River and the resulting oil spill. 

EPA, in coordination with our Federal, State, tribal and local 

partners is committed to protecting the Yellowstone River and the 

communities around it from the adverse environmental effects of 

the Silvertip pipeline oil spill. 

3 

As I think we all know now, this occurred on July 1st late at 

night. The break occurred in a 12-inch pipeline owned by 

ExxonMobil that resulted in a spill of crude oil into the Yellowstone 

River. The current estimate of the amount of oil released remains 

at 1,000 barrels based on information provided by ExxonMobil. But 

both PHMSA and the State of Montana are investigating all elements of this incident, including the amount of oil released. 

EPA continues to hold ExxonMobil accountable for assessment 

and cleanup. The agency has issued an official administrative order 

to ExxonMobil directing the company to take a number of cleanup 

and removal and near-term restoration efforts. We will continually 

and carefully and thoroughly continue to review their work plans, 

data and field activities. 

EPA shares the responsibility of responding to oil spills in the 

United States with the U.S. Coast Guard, as well as responsibility 

for prevention and preparedness with several other Federal agencies. As the principal Federal response agency for oil spills in the 

inland zone of the United States, EPA is the Federal on-scene coordinator for the Yellowstone River spill. 

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is 

responsible for regulation and oversight of pipeline safety and my 

counterpart, whom you have already introduced, will discuss that 

agency’s role with respect to the pipeline and oil spill prevention 

response. 

I would also like to point out that the State, and especially Governor Schweitzer, have been integrally involved in the coordination 

and the coordinated response to this spill and have been an important partner in this response. The Governor’s leadership in the deployment of several agencies and the State’s consultation with experts from other States are representative of the extraordinary effort toward keeping the people of Montana affected by this spill informed about what is happening on the ground. 

As part of our mission to protect public health and the environment and out of an abundance of caution, we have been collecting 

air, surface water and drinking water samples, and as the floodwaters have started to recede, soil and sediment samples. EPA has 

been actively engaged in overseeing the shoreline cleanup assessment techniques, or SCAT, activities, and the SCAT is a process of 

inspecting impacted areas for the degree of oiling and the types of 

soil and vegetation that needs to be cleaned up in a particular 

area. 

The teams are now finding quantities of oil as the river levels go 

down under debris piles, and those of you who know unobstructed 

streams, as you have already defined, know that debris piles up, 

mostly wood and logs and vegetative material, will pile up in a 

stream during a flood and under those piles we are starting to see 

evidence of oil that has accumulated there because the water slows 

down underneath those piles. 

So the SCAT teams, including the State’s, are currently evaluating a range of options for remediating that oil, without causing 

greater damage to the ecosystem, which is always a balancing act 

that we have to play here. 

To date, water sampling conducted by EPA indicates that there 

are no petroleum hydrocarbons above the drinking water standards 

4 

in that region. In addition, our air monitoring continues to show no 

detection of contaminants associated with the spill in the ambient 

air along the Yellowstone River at levels that would pose a threat 

to human health. 

These monitoring efforts, along with sampling and monitoring 

taken or planned by our partners, will continue as we remain focused on taking all the necessary steps to protect public health. As 

additional data are collected, we will have a more comprehensive 

picture of the potential impacts. 

In addition to our collection of real-time air samples, EPA also 

followed strict scientific and quality assurance protocols for the soil 

or sediment samples that are collected and sent to certified local 

laboratories for analysis and validation. As soon as EPA has updated data, we post the information on our website. In addition, we 

have been providing daily updates to the public and have held community meetings to keep the public informed. 

I want to take this opportunity to quickly report on the assets 

being deployed for this incident. As of July 18th, there are 755 personnel onsite and 610 currently in the field engaged in cleanup or 

sampling activities. Cleanup crews have used 41,000 linear feet of 

materials such as absorbent booms and 9,000 square feet of materials such as absorbent pads. Crews have removed 942 barrels of 

oily liquid and 505 cubic yards of oily solids. The liquid waste is 

being processed through a permitted refinery wastewater treatment plant and the solid waste is being shipped to a facility to reclaim those materials. Evacuation also last weekend of the pipeline 

removed 370 barrels of oily liquid and about 80 barrels of oil. 

Next steps, and I am just about done, in coordination with our 

Federal and State and local partners, EPA is committed to protecting the community from any adverse environmental effects 

from the oil. In the coming weeks, we will be transitioning from 

emergency response to the SCAT-driven process, toward a State-determined cleanup standard. EPA will continue monitoring, identifying and responding to potential public health and environmental 

concerns. 

At this time and after my partner’s testimony, I will answer any 

of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Perciasepe follows:] 

5 


23821.001
6 


23821.002
7 


23821.003
8 


23821.004
9 


23821.005
10 


23821.006
11 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Mr. Perciasepe. 

I have one question. You said SCAT-driven. That raises certain 

questions. What does SCAT-driven mean? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Those of us who hike may have a different view, 

but SCAT is a shoreline assessment process. I think the exact 

words, I never can precisely remember, but it is a process where 

you go along the shoreline and actually evaluate what needs to be 

done and then that gets reported to the cleanup crews, both contractors, but mostly for the responsible party. And that directs the 

cleanup activities. And that process is ongoing until we are done. 

Senator BAUCUS. OK. I was just curious. Thank you. 

The Honorable Cynthia Quarterman? 

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

ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Good morning, Chairman Baucus. Thank you 

for the opportunity to discuss the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration’s investigation of and response to the 

July 1st ExxonMobil Pipeline Company oil spill in Laurel, Montana. 

Safety is the No. 1 priority of Secretary LaHood, myself and the 

employees of PHMSA. We are all committed to reducing safety 

risks to the public and the environment. More than 2.5 million 

miles of pipeline delivery energy to homes and businesses across 

America and our job at PHMSA is to ensure that every mile is safe. 

Over the past 20 years, the traditional measures of risk exposure 

such as population growth and development have been rising. However, the number of significant incidents involving onshore hazardous liquid pipelines has declined 28 percent, with a corresponding decrease of 57 percent of gross barrels spilled. 

Despite those overall improvements, I am deeply troubled by this 

recent oil spill. Secretary LaHood, myself and the employees of 

PHMSA are always mindful of the substantial effects these incidents can have on the community where a spill occurs. I assure you 

that PHMSA is vigorously investigating this incident and will continue to do so. 

We continue to assist various State and Federal agencies, such 

as our partner EPA, in assessing the failure’s devastating effects 

to the Yellowstone River and its surrounding communities and 

helping with cleanup activities. 

Due to the high river flows, the ruptured pipe is currently inaccessible for further examination. However, I can assure this Subcommittee that once the pipe becomes accessible PHMSA will complete its investigation as soon as possible. We have contacted all 

operators with pipeline crossings in the Yellowstone River to verify 

the condition and operational status of their crossings. We advised 

them to take appropriate preventive measures, to patrol their pipeline crossings, monitor them more frequently, and coordinate their 

efforts with other nearby operators. 

Before this incident occurred, PHMSA was actively monitoring 

the Silvertip pipeline and the recent flooding conditions. Due to the 

onset of heavy flooding starting in May 2011, PHMSA inspectors 

began monitoring the flow-rate in the Yellowstone River on a daily 

12 

basis. In response to the potential risks prior to the spill, we required ExxonMobil to perform a depth-of-cover survey that confirmed the pipeline was buried at least five feet below the riverbank. ExxonMobil later informed us that the south bank was covered on average by 12 feet of cover. 

Mr. Chairman, I assure you that PHMSA will remain vigilant in 

ensuring the safety, reliability and the integrity of all pipelines 

under its jurisdiction. We will also ensure that the Silvertip pipeline is free of safety and environmental risks before ExxonMobil is 

granted permission to re-start the line. 

PHMSA will investigate this incident fully to ensure that the 

pipeline is operated safely, that the public is protected, and that 

any violations of the Federal pipeline safety regulations are swiftly 

addressed. 

Thank you, and I am happy to respond to any questions you 

might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Quarterman follows:] 

13 


23821.007
14 


23821.008
15 


23821.009
16 


23821.010
17 


23821.011
18 

Senator BAUCUS. OK. I would like to basically start with you, 

Mr. Perciasepe, and just some basic questions I have. Obviously, 

the degree to which the cleanup has been accomplished, and before 

I get to that, the extent of the damages. If you could just tell us 

just what the damages were at the spill. It is somewhat obvious, 

but how much damage is still left, either in terms of oil, contaminated ground, air pollution, homes where there is still oil. Just 

damage in any sense of the term that one would ordinarily think 

of at this point. 

And then second, when do you think it will all be totally cleaned 

up? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Let me try a couple of observations based on 

those questions. We have set in our order a plan that we would 

hope that we would be done by the fall with the cleanup. But that 

is going to be highly dependent on a lot of variables, including 

those SCAT teams, which I want to make sure I tell you what the 

actual SCAT stands for. It is shoreline cleanup assessment technique, which are groups of people that will go up and down the 

shoreline and continue to assess the damage, and then sometimes 

you have to come back again once things are revealed. 

We also know that the conditions from the flooding, we are starting to see as the water recedes some of the soil that has been oiled 

along the shoreline and we are out there monitoring and sampling 

that soil. We are also seeing, as I mentioned in my testimony, some 

oil that has accumulated under some of the debris piles that are 

associated also with flooding. 

So we are in the process of assessing those with our partners, including the State, and we will be aiming toward the State-defined 

cleanup standards that they are involved with helping us define as 

we go along. 

Also, on some of the ranch and agricultural lands along the river 

that may have been oiled, soil that may have been oiled, we are 

also bringing the Department of Agriculture in to work with us and 

to help us assess what guidelines and cleanup standards might be 

appropriate for some of those areas that did get oiled. 

Senator BAUCUS. So what agencies, what government determines 

what standards? You mentioned the State has standards, then you 

mentioned USDA. It sounds a little confusing. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, USDA, we are bringing them in for their 

technical expertise, but we will go with what the State determines 

is a cleanup standard that they would like to see, and will continue 

the SCAT process until we get to those. 

Senator BAUCUS. Do you work with the State on that standard? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. 

Senator BAUCUS. And do you know what the State standard is? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, it will depend on whether it is soil or 

water or sheen on the water. Under the Clean Water Act, we want 

to remove the oil and oil products so that there is no more visible 

sheen or oil in the environment. The State may have some additional cleanup standards that they want us to follow and that we 

will want to incorporate. So I don’t want to say it is one or the 

other. 

On the Clean Water Act, we have certain responsibilities, but we 

also have a responsibility to work with our partner at the State. 

19 

Senator BAUCUS. That is what I was going to ask. So what is the 

Federal responsibility under the Clean Water Act? What is it? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Under the Clean Water Act, which sets up the 

oil pollution control program, we are responsible for directing the 

cleanup activities that are underway now. 

Senator BAUCUS. I don’t want to be too technical here, but are 

there Federal standards under the Clean Water Act with respect 

to oil spills? Are there cleanup standards? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, there are water quality standards that are 

set for the river that we have to get back to. 

Senator BAUCUS. Right. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Those standards are also, I might add, Mr. 

Chairman, are standards that the State sets for the water quality 

standards under the Clean Water Act. Under cleaning up oil, there 

are a number of observable approaches you take, including removal 

of the visible oil and the sheening on the water. 

Senator BAUCUS. Right. I guess the question is, we need to know 

what we are dealing with here. That is, what is the standard? People need to know what the standard is. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, you have the drinking water standard for 

drinking water. 

Senator BAUCUS. I know. I am just talking about the average guy 

who has a place along the river and he is going to want to know 

and he should know what is the standard by which EPA, the State, 

Exxon, all related here, will clean my place up to. So how is he supposed to know? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, it will be water quality standards of the 

State of Montana is what we will make sure we achieve. 

Senator BAUCUS. Is that known what that is? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I don’t have it here in front of me, but, yes, it 

is known. 

Senator BAUCUS. It should be known. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. And it will be. And if it isn’t known, we will certainly make sure it is. 

Senator BAUCUS. Can I ask you to do that, please? Just work 

with the State and do all you have to do to make sure the people 

affected by this spill know what the standard is to which damage 

is supposed to be cleaned up to. Everybody needs to know what the 

standard is. It sounds like we are not quite sure what the standard 

is at this point. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, first of all, you are going to want the agricultural land to be able to be used for its agricultural purposes. 

That is why we are having some technical advice from the USDA. 

We have water quality standards that are set by the State and we 

have drinking water standards that are set by EPA. And we will 

want to make sure all of those components are taken into account 

and used by the SCAT teams for the final cleanup. 

Senator BAUCUS. Right. I understand that. You are basically the 

lead agency, aren’t you, the EPA? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. That is correct, for the cleanup. 

Senator BAUCUS. The cleanup, and I am talking about the cleanup here. So could you take charge of putting these standards together and incorporate it into something that is easily understood 

by people? 

20 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. 

Senator BAUCUS. For example, the farmers and the ranchers. 

You are going to have to talk to the USDA, I suppose, and find out 

what they can help you with. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. We will be responsible for making sure of 

that. I want to say that we must do this in partnership with the 

State because they have a very important and primary role here. 

Senator BAUCUS. Yes, that is clear. I know I have sat many 

times in the intersection between the State and the Feds and the 

Clean Water Act. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. And so we would be, as we go through that 

process of looking at the river water and any drinking water that 

may have been impacted down the line there, we are going to be 

circling back with those requirements for cleanup to the responsible party. 

Senator BAUCUS. I understand that there is still oil odor in some 

places. Why is that and how can that be remedied? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Our air quality monitoring, we have not seen 

anything in the air that would be from the oil that would be of any 

immediate health concern. In fact, the night when most of the volatile organic matter was coming off of the oil, things like benzene 

perhaps, working with the local fire departments and health departments, there were evacuations of people until that subsided. 

But it is important to note, and this is hard to note sometimes, 

but the human nose is actually more sensitive than the monitoring 

devices. In other words, we can smell some of these organic chemicals at very, very low levels, even below a level that would cause 

health concerns. 

Senator BAUCUS. You ought to have dogs. They are better than 

people. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. So that doesn’t mean that we are not monitoring to make sure that those levels are not at a higher level of 

health concern. And of course, we don’t want those odors to be 

there in the long haul. But the point I am trying to make, it is possible for people to continue to smell some of the oil odors even 

though the levels are not showing up on our instruments. 

Senator BAUCUS. Well, people smell it irrespective of what shows 

up on your monitors and it is distasteful. It is unpleasant. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. That’s right. That needs to be part of the remediation. 

Senator BAUCUS. Smelling the odor is still unpleasant and that 

will be part of what is potentially harmful. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, I would agree that people could be adversely affected by odors that are not what they are normally subjected to. But removing the oil so that the odors go away is part 

of the process here. But we are also trying to monitor, Senator, in 

the ambient air to make sure that they are not at the level where 

we are looking at a long-term cancer risk or anything of that nature. 

Senator BAUCUS. Right. Do you know the type of oil that was in 

the pipeline that spilled? Do you know what was in it? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, it is generally well known oil. It is from 

usually a mix at this refinery from oil from Wyoming or in some 

cases a mix of Canada oil sands oil. That general mix is generally 

21 

well known. But we have specific samples of the soil at the lab, as 

does the State and others, and we are waiting for those lab results 

which will give us a more precise thing. 

But we generally know the kind of oil this is and don’t expect 

anything extraordinary when we see those results, but they will be 

confirming the content. As soon as we have those results from the 

lab, which I am expecting any day now, we will post that on our 

website and present it in our public meetings that we have out 

there. 

Senator BAUCUS. Great. For the record, could you send the results of those tests to this Committee, please? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes, yes. Those results will be made public as 

soon as we get them. 

Senator BAUCUS. OK. 

The big question a lot of landowners are going to have, who do 

they trust? How do they know what this stuff is? How do they 

know when this is going to be cleaned up? People don’t want to be 

left hanging. They want to know if there is an end date and so 

forth. And I understand that you have ordered ExxonMobil to remediate contaminated areas by August 18th. Is that correct? And 

remediate all areas by September 9th. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Right. 

Senator BAUCUS. And so what does that mean? Will that be total 

remediation? Will that be partial? What does that mean? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, we want the full remediation to the kinds 

of standards we were talking about earlier. We will get to everyplace that has oil on it as we learn of them or find them through 

our SCAT teams. 

And I want to say that order was done within days of the spill 

to put fire in everybody’s belly on a schedule. But if we determine 

that more time is needed for cleanup and we are not done, we will 

extend that to keep ExxonMobil working on the cleanup. 

And so those dates are out there. We are requiring plans to be 

made to cover all of that during those time periods. And we still 

think that is possible, but the dynamic of the floodwaters and what 

we find as those recede could extend those dates. 

Senator BAUCUS. Is the standard 100 percent clean? What is the 

standard basically? I am a landowner. Can I be assured my place 

is going to be back where it was, period? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. That would be the objective, Senator. 

Senator BAUCUS. To have no impact from the oil on the land 

where the oil has been deposited? And one of the governing factors 

there will be making sure that land could be used for what it was 

used before the spill. So it is your understanding the use of the 

land or what? Some of it is for grazing. Some of it is used for recreation and some of it is used for crops. What is your understanding? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes. There were crops. There was grazing land. 

There may have been recreation land. Obviously, some of it is in 

the Billings more urbanized area. All of those previous uses and existing uses will have to be protected and enabled after the cleanup. 

Senator BAUCUS. OK. How much is left to be cleaned up, what 

percent? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I do not know the answer to that, again, because of the floodwaters and the fact that we are waiting for some 

22 

of those floodwaters to recede to see what is under there. And as 

I mentioned, we are discovering some of the oil has accumulated 

under some of the snags and debris piles. It is hard to say for sure 

how much more might still be out there. 

But again, we are not going to rest until we find it all and direct 

the responsible party to clean it up. 

Senator BAUCUS. So when do you think you will know how much 

more work you have to do? By what date? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We are hoping that we can clean it up in the 

timeframe that was in the order, and that would be what we would 

aim for at this time. But if we discover more than we currently 

know, and we need the responsible party to have more time to 

clean it up, we will amend the order to give more time to make 

sure that we don’t leave anything behind. 

Senator BAUCUS. I appreciate that. Could you keep this Committee informed if there are any changes that might occur? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes, we will. And we are going to continue to 

have daily briefings. We are going to continue to have public meetings. As we get more data, we will put it not only on our website, 

we will report it at public meetings in the area there. And if there 

is a need to extend the time for cleanup because of what we discover as the water recede, that will be a clear public discussion and 

we will definitely keep this Committee notified of that. 

Senator BAUCUS. Do you have enough resources? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I think we do, yes. I think what we have here 

is, and we have been adding as we thought we needed it and we 

ramped up pretty quickly. And as I said, there are over 700 people 

now working on this. 

The issue is going to be the dynamic between the floodwaters receding and our discovery process through that SCAT teaming that 

I mentioned. And time may be the only other resource we need a 

little bit more of than we put in the order. But I think we are adequately personed up right now. 

Senator BAUCUS. Before I turn to Mr. Vitter, a few questions 

about your relationship with ExxonMobil. How much of the work 

are they doing? It is my understanding they have responsibility. It 

is my understanding that under the law, ExxonMobil has responsibility to pay for the cleanup. If you could just tell me about the 

interaction between EPA and Exxon as you are working to remediate here. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, the Clean Water Act sets up a process 

where there is a responsible party. ExxonMobil has clearly indicated that they are the responsible party. There has been no arguing about that. They have put the resources in it. The majority of 

the resources that are onsite working are directly funded by 

ExxonMobil. 

We have a number of EPA employees, as well as EPA contractors 

augmenting that and verifying the work. All of that, plus State resources or tribal resources, and we are working with the tribes as 

well, all of those resources will be reimbursed when we get to the 

end of the process here. 

There has been some funding put forward already from our oil 

cleanup fund, and again the responsible party will have to reimburse that when we see what the final bill is. 

23 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you. 

I am honored, we are honored to be joined by Senator Vitter. 

Senator, if you wish to make a statement? 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually, I am going 

to wait until the second panel and have some questions there, but 

thank you. 

Senator BAUCUS. You bet. 

A couple of questions of you, Ms. Quarterman. Basically, if you 

could just go through a little bit of chronology here. It is my understanding that last, I don’t know what it was, August or sometime 

that the people of Laurel were a little concerned about the integrity 

of the pipeline, about the river potentially rising. Well, not August, 

but earlier on before we had the incident. And they consulted with 

EPA, consulted with the State, a little concerned about the integrity of the pipeline, and maybe even ExxonMobil, too. 

And then, as I read the history, there was a review of the pipeline. PHMSA talked to Exxon. Exxon conducted a study and it 

turned out that basically the pipeline was OK. Then, we had this 

incident. 

But if you could, from your perspective, just walk us through the 

chronology of what happened. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Absolutely. About October 2010, we were approached by the city of Laurel, I believe their Public Works Department. They contacted our inspector. I think they had been trying 

to find among the government agencies whose responsibility it was 

for pipeline safety. 

And he contacted our office and said that they were concerned 

about the Silvertip pipeline. I think their concerns primarily related to the south side of the pipeline crossing. At that point, we 

met with them and with Exxon and we required Exxon to do a 

depth-of-cover survey to determine the depth of the pipeline and 

how much earth was on top of it. 

Senator BAUCUS. That was under the river? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Under the water, correct. 

They came back to us and told us that they had at least five feet 

of cover on the part of the pipeline that was on the riverbed. That 

was sufficient to meet the four-feet construction requirements in 

the pipeline safety regs. 

The level of the river continued to rise. On about May 25th, we 

were contacted again by the city saying the river is very high. We 

still are concerned about this pipeline. Again, we contacted Exxon 

to ask them specifically about the south bank of the river crossing. 

The concern there was that if the river were to rise to a certain 

level, it would get into what I believe is Riverside Park. And there, 

the pipeline could potentially be exposed completely if the river 

were to rise high enough. 

So we contacted Exxon about and asked them about that south 

bank of the river and we were informed that they had on average 

12 feet of cover on top of the pipeline on the south river crossing. 

At that point, our inspector began to go out there on a daily basis 

to observe the pipeline river crossing just because the river waters 

were very high. 

Senator BAUCUS. And when was this? About what date? 

24 

Mr. QUARTERMAN. I believe this was May 31st. And at the same 

time, we began to monitor all the Montana pipelines. We contacted 

all the operators associated with river crossings in that area to ask 

them to pay special attention because the waters were very high. 

So that continued on. And around June, the city was again contacting, I believe, Exxon. And so we decided to go into Exxon and 

look further at their integrity management runs, to do field 

verification. They had done an in-line inspection of this line in 2004 

and 2009. So our folks went in and looked at the raw data for that 

in-line inspection in 2009 to see if there were any causes for concern in terms of anomalies on the pipeline at the river crossing. 

As a result of that inspection, I think they found one anomaly 

in 2009. However, the size of the anomaly was below our threshold 

for required fixing at that time. And the 2004 inspection run also 

showed the same anomaly. So there hadn’t been any growth between 2004 and 2009, so they felt comfortable that in terms of the 

integrity of the line that there wasn’t an issue there. 

Senator BAUCUS. But just cutting to the quick here, we don’t 

have a lot of time, something went wrong. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Absolutely. 

Senator BAUCUS. At one point, both ExxonMobil and PHMSA 

thought everything was OK and everything wasn’t OK. The line 

ruptured. Lots of oil spilled. 

So what went wrong? What went wrong with the company? And 

what went wrong with PHMSA? Because you both agree, yes, everything is OK and it wasn’t. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Well, you know, we are in the middle of an 

investigation of what happened on the pipeline. We do not operate 

the pipeline on a day-to-day basis. We came in to assist the State 

with their concerns about the pipeline. Ultimately, the operator is 

responsible for operating its pipeline. They can’t rely on us to say 

yes or no, this is a good idea to continue to operate the pipeline. 

Senator BAUCUS. What is your role then? If the company could 

do what it wants to do, what is your role? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Our role is to oversee the decisions that they 

make. The only instance in which we can essentially tell an operator to stop operating its pipeline is if we see an imminent hazard. 

And I would have to say in this instance with the foresight of 20/ 

20, obviously, the pipeline should have been shut down at the time. 

And given the data was available, I don’t think that our pipeline 

inspector thought that he had the authority to order Exxon to close 

the pipeline. 

Senator BAUCUS. When you look at pipeline integrity and crossings, do you look at hydraulics and the riverbed of specific rivers? 

I mean, every river is different, and the riverbed of every river is 

different. Some are gravelly, some are clay, some might be granite. 

Who knows? And the flood hydraulics of every river are different. 

So what do you do? Do you just take willy nilly whatever the 

company says to you? If the company says, well, it looks OK to us; 

looks like we have five-foot cover here. Looks OK to us. 

Unless you see an imminent danger, is that just it? Or do you 

ask them about hydraulics? Do you ask them about the riverbed 

and how it varies, this river compared with other rivers? 

25 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. That will be the subject of our investigations. 

We will have to go. We have obviously begun to interview Exxon 

and gone to its control room. And we will go to its integrity management plan, not just the data, but the plan itself. Pursuant to 

those regulations, the operator has a responsibility to—— 

Senator BAUCUS. It sounds like PHMSA on its own doesn’t do 

any of that, what I just suggested. That is, look at the specifics of 

the specific river. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Our responsibility is to review the operating 

and maintenance procedures and the integrity management plan 

for the operators. It is the operator’s responsibility to operate its 

pipeline safely. And pursuant to our regulations, they are supposed 

to put in place a continual process for improving their pipeline and 

ensuring, evaluating it, assessing the conditions and maintaining 

the integrity of the pipeline, including those associated with flooding and other climatic issues. 

Senator BAUCUS. Right. Do you have specific requirements as to 

the integrity of pipeline plans? That is, specific requirements as to 

what should be contained in that integrity plan? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Yes, we have requirements. 

Senator BAUCUS. Could you give me examples of one or two or 

three? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Well, every operator is supposed to at the beginning perform a risk assessment of its pipeline system. So at 

every place where it crosses a river or where a soil changes, it 

should know the conditions of that line in terms of whether it is 

particularly corrosive so it can determine what sort of testing 

should be done pursuant to the integrity management plan. It 

should know the river crossings and know whether or not it is one 

that is subject to frequent flooding, and make a determination as 

to whether they need to go beyond what it is in the minimum requirements in the regulations. 

So we require them to do a continual improvement of their own 

systems. I mean, we have certain minimum requirements in our 

regs, but it doesn’t mean that is the only thing an operator needs 

to do. They really need to be active on their own pipeline in ensuring that, especially in a high-consequence area like this, they set 

forth a plan that addresses all of the concerns. 

Senator BAUCUS. How accurate are depth-of-cover surveys? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I don’t know that. We will have to get that information for you. 

Senator BAUCUS. Do you just generally have an idea? You are the 

outfit. You are the agency. You are PHMSA. I mean, if you asked 

Exxon to do a little investigation and part of that is your depth of 

cover, and they come back and say depth of cover is OK. My question is how accurate are depth-of-cover surveys? 

It gets to an earlier question. Do you look at specific rivers, the 

hydrology of a specific river? Of a riverbed content of a specific 

river? All this gets to the accuracy of a depth-of-cover survey. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I have heard plus-or-minus six inches, but I 

would not commit to that. I would want someone to review that 

and respond. 

Senator BAUCUS. To be honest, ma’am, it sounds like you are not 

really on top of this. I mean, that is my impression I am getting 

26 

so far and I urge you to get more on top of it. I have to be candid. 

That is the impression I am getting. 

Could you tell me a little bit about the difference between trenches and drilling? And when one is more appropriate compared to the 

other? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. This particular pipeline was trenched or put 

in with an open-cut technology which was the prevalent technology 

in use until I would say the early to mid–1990’s. More recently, the 

horizontal drilling technology is quite frequently used for river 

crossings. You would, rather than stop the waterway and trench 

beneath and put the pipeline in, you would actually go underneath 

the river from one side to the other, so it would be much deeper. 

Senator BAUCUS. When is it more appropriate to drill as opposed 

to trench? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. We don’t have set standards in our regulations at this point in time. One of the things that we have done 

very recently is to put in place, we have opened up a set of comments for our Hazardous Liquid Integrity Management Program. 

And essentially everything is on the table at this point. 

One of the things that happens at the end of our investigation 

will be that in addition to reporting on what happened in this particular instance, we will also make a recommendation about 

changes that need to be made to the pipeline safety laws. 

Senator BAUCUS. Well, obviously, when do you anticipate concluding your investigation as to the cause of what happened in this 

case? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. At this point, we have not been able to get the 

pipe out of the river. We are expecting perhaps in August that the 

waters will be low enough so that it can be removed. At that point, 

it will take probably two or 3 months for us to get the results and 

conclude our investigation. 

Senator BAUCUS. So you probably won’t know until October. Is 

that right? 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. That is probably right. If you compare it to 

some other investigations, I think it is probably right. 

Senator BAUCUS. Well, I urge you to devote a lot of attention to 

finding out what went wrong as quickly as you can and not let this 

drag out. And report to this Committee your findings. Send us a 

copy of the report. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Absolutely. 

Senator BAUCUS. OK. I am just not sure, frankly, ma’am, that I 

am satisfied that your agency is on top of things here. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Well, let me assure you that our agency is 

very aggressively looking at pipeline safety issues and it has been 

a period during which there have been a number of significant incidents after I would say almost a decade of few incidents. And we 

are looking diligently at all aspects of the pipeline safety program. 

As I mentioned, with respect to hazardous liquids, we began a 

review of those rules last year. We are in the middle of a rulemaking process on that. With respect to gas transmission pipelines, 

we are about to begin a rulemaking associated with those pipelines. 

At the beginning of the Administration, we put out a rule with respect to the distribution pipelines. We just expedited the application of the control room management rule that went into effect. 

27 

Senator BAUCUS. All I know is in this case the company made 

a mistake. It was wrong about the integrity of the pipeline. Your 

agency made a mistake. It was wrong about the integrity of the 

pipeline. And it is our job to do all we can to make sure that there 

is no reoccurrence. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. I agree that we don’t want a reoccurrence. 

Senator BAUCUS. And I am urging you in your report to tell us 

what needs to be done to minimize to close to the probability of 

zero any reoccurrence. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Yes, that is our goal, zero. 

Senator BAUCUS. OK, and I look forward to it. 

Ms. QUARTERMAN. Thank you. 

Senator BAUCUS. To seeing that report. Thank you very much. 

Senator Vitter, I guess you have no questions? 

Thank you both very much for taking the time to come and talk 

to us. We deeply appreciate it. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you. 

OK, our next panel, we have three: Mr. Scott McBurney, who 

lives on the Yellowstone; Hon. Bill Kennedy, County Commissioner, 

Yellowstone County; and Gary Pruessing, President, ExxonMobil 

Pipeline Company. 

OK. I will begin with you, Mr. Kennedy, Bill Kennedy, County 

Commissioner who serves Yellowstone County with utmost distinction for a good number of years; always reelected. 

Bill? 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL KENNEDY, COMMISSIONER, 

DISTRICT THREE, YELLOWSTONE COUNTY, MONTANA 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Senator Baucus, and thank you for inviting me to the Committee for insight on the Exxon oil spill in the 

Yellowstone River near Laurel, Montana, located in Yellowstone 

County. 

I have some prepared statements and I would like to, after listening to the statements earlier, I would like to make a couple of 

comments on that also. 

I am Bill Kennedy, a Yellowstone County Commissioner and the 

pipeline crosses Yellowstone River located in my county. We are located about 140 miles from Yellowstone Park and we had a lot of 

inquiries about was there a spill in Yellowstone Park. It was a spill 

in the Yellowstone River. We are 140 miles to the east. We are 

about 300 miles to the confluence of the Yellowstone River and the 

Missouri River. So as you can see, we are in the mid-area, but the 

Yellowstone River flows into the Missouri then on to the Mississippi. 

And Senator Vitter, that ends up down in Louisiana. 

Since May, we have had flooding, and in June we received a 

Presidential emergency declaration on our county and statewide. 

The amount of snowpack is way above normal and the Yellowstone 

River has been higher since May. This gives you a background for 

the July 1 oil break of the ExxonMobil pipeline. 

I have been monitoring the flooding on the Yellowstone River almost daily since the river hit the flood stages. Our disaster and 

emergency service director was out there and we have been moniVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:08 Apr 24, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\23821.TXT VERNE
28 

toring the height of the river, and actually it has been high water 

since May and we are still in the high water stages even though 

we have dropped. We are still in high water stages. 

Late Friday night on July 1, our Disaster and Emergency Service 

Director Duane Winslow opened the Emergency Operations Center. 

The Laurel Volunteer Fire Department, along with the Yellowstone 

sheriff’s deputies, evacuated approximately 125 people from their 

homes along the Yellowstone River. The air was heavy with the 

smell of the crude oil. The immediate danger to the public was not 

known at the time, but all emergency personnel were notified, and 

that is very important in our county and especially all the counties 

below us that feed out of the river. 

Approximately 42,000 gallons of oil had leaked into the Yellowstone River. Emergency personnel and Exxon employees responded 

immediately. Within the next hour, pipeline valves had been 

closed, shutting down much of the oil. 

We live in the west and water is very important for us, and safe 

drinking water, irrigating our crops, watering livestock, and tourism on our Montana rivers are very important to us. But public 

safety and cleanup are our top priorities on this project. This is a 

big deal and all parties hit the ground running. 

At 6:30 a.m. on Saturday morning, I was out there on the river 

and then we called a press conference that morning. Immediately, 

about 8 to 8:30, we called the press in to let the public know that 

the drinking water was safe. The city of Billings municipality, the 

city of Laurel is above where the break was. The city of Billings, 

the Lockwood intake, all of them were shut down early in the wee 

hours of the morning on that Saturday morning. Exxon was already on board, in addition to our local disaster and emergency 

personnel. EPA and the State DEQ were en route and the response 

was immediate, and the July 4th weekend became a real-life disaster in our county. 

The cleanup process was underway, but at this time it was very 

evident that the local government was informed, but not involved 

in the decisions and the next steps of what was going on. EPA took 

charge, but samples and results were slow to come, taking from 

four to 7 days. And as you heard earlier, they are still waiting for 

the sample results. 

The public, especially the landowners, were upset over the unknown, and by day three I asked to be at the table on the decisions 

and the plan for the cleanup. It was agreed that the county would 

sit on the board, and we were briefed, but sampling and cleanup 

were still left to the EPA and DEQ. 

Exxon did take our suggestions. We provided mapping and the 

landowners’ names and they contacted our residents. I asked every 

agency to have a live person on the phone and face-to-face meetings 

with the public. Exxon had briefings daily, then EPA had daily 

briefings. The State set up a local office and took their own samples, but we all need to work together, and that is very, very important on this. 

We need to have a strategy to keep local government officials on 

board and in decisionmaking positions. We know the residents, the 

geography and the companies in our community. This spill opened 

our eyes to what a leak can do and how our emergency planning 

29 

works. We also know now that we need to be included on decision 

on cleanup and future safety planning for residents. We have five 

other pipelines also in this vicinity under the Yellowstone River. 

The pipelines are safer than trucking and rail and keep goodpaying jobs in our community. We have three refineries and have 

always had expectations that DOT check and assured everything 

was good. This is a wake-up call for our county to be more involved. 

Some positive outcomes that came is we are now invited to participate in the daily briefings on the status of the cleanup. We actually get emails every day from EPA. Local landowners have faceto-face meetings with Exxon and the agencies, which we have insisted on and they do have that back-and-forth dialog. 

Local elected officials are included in the briefings. Exxon and 

EPA have held public meetings, which came from our insistence. 

Local work force is being trained for hazardous cleanup and we 

have 125 people in the local community now that are being trained. 

The public now knows what to expect from a public response system, which is very, very important. 

We have assurances from Exxon that the property will be 

cleaned up and put back to the way it was before the leak. And 

we have independent water, air and soil monitoring and sampling 

through the State and EPA to confirm these assurances. 

But can we do better? Publicity will take a while to explain to 

agricultural producers and tourists that the Yellowstone River is 

safe to irrigate their crops and water livestock and that tourists 

can still float and fish on the Yellowstone River. 

Communication between all parties took a few days to be seamless and I will tell you, we are still working on that and it needs 

to be from the very onset. Local government officials are still not 

openly included in decisions. And as you saw with DOT and EPA 

today, never once did you hear in their testimony that they mentioned local government officials. They have mentioned they work 

with the State. They work with other Federal agencies, but they 

have never worked with the local elected officials. 

The city of Laurel was brought up because they saw a problem. 

The ongoing dialog with the city of Laurel, with Yellowstone County, I don’t think Yellowstone County was even mentioned in the dialog today. 

So as I can say, local officials are still not openly included. I 

would say that all parties seem to be working together in the community. I was happy today to hear what the amount of time for the 

cleanup is going to be. I hadn’t had that date at all. And the one 

thing that we have not known in the county is what are the rules 

and what standards are we going after. We have also involved our 

extension agent who works with all the agricultural landowners 

and we asked him to get involved. 

I spent the last week with county commissioners from across the 

County at the National Association of Counties. And Senator 

Vitter, I was with your Louisiana county commissioners. I was with 

the Florida county commissioners and county commissioners along 

the Gulf States as they were talking about the oil cleanup. 

The one thing that the National Association of Counties and also 

the county commissioners in the Gulf States and everyone that has 

30 

had oil spills have talked about is we need policies to strengthen 

local government involvement under the Oil Pollution Act. We believe that the Federal agencies that do oversee OPA must be required to consult and coordinate with local governments in environmental protection, oil spill contingency planning, training and implementation of the processes. 

That is needed. That is one thing that we have seen from this 

spill. We have been working with our local agency and with our 

local landowners, but it seems like we are the last ones to get the 

call and to sit down and talk about it. 

And when everybody leaves town and it is all over, the local 

elected officials are still there. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kennedy follows:] 

31 


23821.012
32 


23821.013
33 


23821.014
34 


23821.015
35 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Bill. 

Mr. Pruessing, you are next. 

STATEMENT OF GARY W. PRUESSING, PRESIDENT, 

EXXONMOBIL PIPELINE COMPANY, EXXONMOBIL CORPORATION 

Mr. PRUESSING. Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Vitter, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss with you the pipeline incident 

that occurred on July 1st in the Yellowstone River in Montana and 

to update you on the progress that we have achieved to clean up 

the spill. 

Before I begin, however, allow me to repeat our sincere apologies 

to the people of Montana. We deeply regret that this incident occurred and we are steadfastly committed to not only complete the 

cleanup, but also to build the learnings from this incident into our 

future operations. 

This first requires that we understand exactly what occurred. We 

do not yet know the precise cause of the apparent breach in the 

Silvertip pipeline and will not likely know until our investigation 

is complete. We do know that the pipeline had met all regulatory 

requirements, including a 2009 pipeline inspection, a December 

2010 depth-of-cover survey, and additionally as recently as last 

month, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or PHMSA, performed a 

field audit of the pipeline’s integrity management program. 

And of course, we do know the effects of the incident. The pipeline lost pressure the night of July 1st, and within 7 minutes, our 

employees shut down the pumps. Shortly thereafter, we began closing valves to isolate segments of the pipeline and minimize any release. We estimate that no more than 1,000 barrels of oil spilled. 

We notified the National Response Center and immediately 

began implementing our emergency response plans, drawing upon 

local resources from the ExxonMobil Billings refinery, as well as 

our experts from across the Country. A unified command center, 

led by the Environmental Protection Agency, and involving more 

than 750 people, now directs the response. 

This coordinated efforts, combining the resources and expertise of 

government, industry and others, is crucial to effective cleanup and 

recovery. I speak on behalf of the entire company in thanking the 

public servants at all levels of government and the volunteers from 

nongovernmental organizations contributing to the effort. 

This includes professionals from PHMSA, the Environmental 

Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of the Interior, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, the Yellowstone County Commission, local response 

organizations, International Bird Rescue and many others. 

As part of our cleanup strategy, we have divided the area 

downriver of the spill into four zones. In the first two cleanup 

zones covering a combined distance of approximately 19 miles, we 

have deployed approximately 52,000 feet of boom, 270,000 absorbent pads, and several vacuum trucks, boats and other equipment 

to capture oil. 

36 

Our priority is to ensure the cleanup is safe and effective, a task 

made more challenging by the persistent high water levels in the 

Yellowstone River. 

On July 17 , we completed a 2-day procedure to remove any remaining crude oil from the Silvertip pipeline at the Yellowstone 

River crossing. The work was conducted under the direction and 

oversight of the EPA and the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. Through the Unified Command, we continue to 

conduct air and water quality monitoring of over 200 miles of the 

river, as well as wildlife assessments and recovery efforts. 

To date, EPA monitoring confirms there is no danger to public 

health and no reported water system impacts. 

We have also brought in recognized experts such as International 

Bird Rescue to actively monitor the impact on local wildlife. So far, 

impacts have been limited and small in number and a list is available on the website. Monitoring and mitigating impact of the spill 

on wildlife will remain a priority of ours throughout the cleanup. 

As the Chairman knows, the Silvertip pipeline plays an important role in supplying energy to his constituents in the Billings 

area and therefore helps sustain local jobs and economic growth. 

We are committed to replace the damaged pipe using horizontal directional drilling techniques with a new section that we will lay approximately 30-feet below the riverbed, consistent with the PHMSA 

direction. 

Of paramount concern to us is the impact on the local communities. We established a community information line and we have 

received more than 370 calls. About 160 of those calls are claims 

related to property, agriculture and health and we are actively responding to each one of those. 

We have also sent several teams door to door to visit more than 

250 residents in the most impacted areas. It is our goal to respond 

to individual concerns within 24 hours. 

I am pleased to report that these outreach efforts have mostly received a very positive response. In fact, about 160 calls to the information line have been offers of help. This outpouring of local volunteer support is immensely helpful. It testifies to the resilience, industry and generosity of the people of Montana and we deeply appreciate their understanding and support. 

To repeat, ExxonMobil Pipeline Company takes full responsibility for the incident and the cleanup and we pledge to satisfy all 

legitimate claims. But even then, our work will not be done. We are 

equally committed to learn from this incident and to build those 

learnings into our future operations. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pruessing follows:] 

37 


23821.016
38 


23821.017
39 


23821.018
40 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you, Mr. Pruessing. 

Mr. McBurney, you are next. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT MCBURNEY, MONTANA LANDOWNER 

Mr. MCBURNEY. Senator Baucus, Senator Vitter, thank you for 

the honor of allowing me to testify. I would like to give special 

thanks to Senator Baucus’ staff. 

My name is Scott McBurney. Since 2005, I have lived near the 

Yellowstone River between Billings and Laurel with my wife Sue 

and two sons. We own four horses, which we keep on 20 acres. We 

have no river frontage, but are very close to the river. We put up 

high-quality grass hay, most of which we sell except for what we 

keep for our own horses. The middle of our hayfield had not been 

cut this year because it was too muddy after the big May flood. 

July 1st was a pretty hectic day. The river was at full flood mode 

for the third time this year and the U.S. Geological Survey forecast 

the river to be at 14 feet. At that level, the water covers most of 

my hay pasture and is just inches from getting into my shop and 

barn and less than a vertical foot from being inside my house. 

There were some pretty nervous people at my house that day. 

My wife and family had gone to bed and I was getting ready to do 

the same when the Laurel Volunteer Fire Department showed up 

at my house and my neighbor’s house with their lights flashing. 

When they came to our house next, I met them in the driveway. 

The odor was really strong when I walked out the door and I have 

to tip my cap to those firefighters driving around in the dark looking for houses next to a flooding river. 

It was a mandatory evacuation and we found a motel in Billings 

on our fourth try. It was about 1:30 in the morning. When we got 

home the next day and I walked out in my pasture and found out 

that we had a problem. Oil had come over the ditch next to the 

river about halfway down my pasture. Big patches of oil were lying 

in the shortgrass where I had cut some hay. As you went further 

down the property away from the house, the amount of oil increased. Oily water stood in the ditches and in the pasture. The 

tall uncut hay had acted like a big brush and stopped a lot of the 

heavy thick oil. A thick line of oil showed on the edge of the uncut 

hay. 

There was something else that was troubling to me, the water 

standing in the pasture that during the two previous floods had 

been pretty clear was an ugly brown color. When we got home on 

Saturday, I made a call to ExxonMobil. We were called later in the 

day by Crawford Company, who are acting as ExxonMobil’s insurance. We have had several meetings with the people from Crawford 

and ExxonMobil and they have always been very helpful and more 

than fair. 

On July 13th, Crawford wrote us a check for the hay we hadn’t 

cut and for the loss of our pasture. The thinking is that once the 

ground dries out, ExxonMobil will remove all of the grass in the 

affected area. 

On July 15th, Crawford brought us a check for our hotel expenses. They also agreed to pay us to buy an electric fence and a 

water tank so we can put our horses our on the undamaged portion 

41 

of our pasture with a temporary fence. We have put up an electric 

fence and the horses are out there getting fat. 

We have been talking to Crawford about independent soil testing. They have given tentative approval for this. They would like 

an estimate from the company doing the work and we are now trying to find someone to do it. 

We attended a meeting Wednesday, July 13th at Laurel High 

School. The information on air quality was good news. The air was 

fine. It smelled bad for a couple of days, but that is all. The questions I had about soil testing was not quite as clear. The EPA was 

going to do more, but a comprehensive plan was not put forward 

at that point. The information or advice on agricultural matters 

was incorrect or nonexistent. 

On July 12th and 13th, the EPA came to my house and took soil 

and water samples, one soil sample on 10 acres of pasture. It ended 

up seeming more like a public relations move than a quest for information about my property. They brought a television crew. My 

wife Sue was interviewed and was the lead story on Channel 8 

news that night. So it was exciting, but I couldn’t help feeling a little bit disappointed. 

I felt like the water testing was a little overdue. We won’t have 

the results until July 27th, and that is almost a month after the 

pipeline broke. 

On the whole, I think EPA is doing a good job. They have a lot 

of work to do and it is probably too early in the process to think 

about the concerns I have, the long-term effects on soil and water. 

Right now, they are cleaning up oil and that is what they should 

be doing. 

The Montana Department of Environmental Quality came out to 

do some soil samples. On Monday, they took three samples. I need 

more information. How much oil is too much oil on my property? 

What is the long-term effect of oil on my grass? Will the grass be 

fit to use next year if it comes back? Why is some of my grass 

dying and some of it growing? 

There seems to me to be a gap in the knowledge. The EPA guys 

don’t know much about farming and the farm guy doesn’t know 

much about oil spills. I think the biggest worry the landowners 

have is property values. The reason I want independent soil testing 

is I want to have a report in my file cabinet that I could show anybody who might be considering buying my place someday a clean 

bill of health, if you will, for my property. 

I feel like ExxonMobil owes me this, the same with my water 

well. I would like the well to be tested for maybe 3 years or something. I don’t think my water is bad. I just worry that somebody 

else might. 

We will face a lot of questions from our hay customers as well, 

and I would like to have some science behind the answers for them. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McBurney follows:] 

42 


23821.019
43 


23821.020
44 


23821.021
45 


23821.022
46 


23821.023
47 


23821.024
48 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you very much, Mr. McBurney. 

I will start with you, Mr. Kennedy. What are some of the questions that you would like to have been asked and answers given 

from the EPA folks and the PHMSA folks? You said as county commissioner, you were not consulted very much. So what are some of 

the areas that you would like to have answers to? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Senator, when the Unified Command Center was 

started, it was the EPA. It was the responsible party and it was 

DEQ with the State of Montana. The local government wasn’t included until I made a point of going back and saying we need to 

be sitting at the table. 

Then I was asked the question, you will just go along with whatever everyone else does? And I said, I would like to see what is 

being talked about so we can answer the questions for our own 

local folks that have the questions to be answered. 

Senator BAUCUS. What are some of the things that you could 

have helped them with? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I think the one thing that we did help them with 

to begin with is we wanted to make sure that there was a face to 

every landowner that was affected. And we provided the GIS survey, the map, the names and the addresses of all the local landowners. We were able to mitigate between a lot of the landowners 

and actually offered to go out and meet with any of the landowners, and also Exxon or EPA. A lot of the local folks trust us and 

we would help them through the process. 

The other is the public meeting process. To begin with, we called 

the press conference to make sure that the public understood 

things were safe. We didn’t get for days any sampling so we could 

get out to the public the opportunity to tell people what was actually in the sampling. I know there is an ability to sample and come 

back right away with to at least verify that there was not public 

safety problem there and then come back with the final results and 

everything that is in there. We needed to assure the public. 

The other piece that we did is that we brought to the table the 

City-County Health Department which is our health person in the 

county that had to assure the public that between the drinking 

water, between the health effects, there was no health problems 

there. They trust the local people. And I think that is really what 

we bring in. 

The other thing that we hear, Senator, is with the local elected 

officials, we are there years after the problem occurs. And we can 

follow through with making sure that the plan is adhered to. We 

do need to be a part of the plan to know that we can at least monitor the plan in the future after everybody leaves. 

Senator BAUCUS. You make good points. You are going to be 

there afterwards as commissioners. So do you have standards that 

you have recommended to EPA and to PHMSA and to Exxon that 

you want to see met that will be adhered to five, 10, 15 years from 

now? It gets to the point that Mr. McBurney is raising. What is the 

value of his property going to be five, 10 years from now? He wants 

something in his file to show that they cleaned up 100 percent 

when some potential purchaser comes along. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Senator, we are going to need to be able to answer 

those questions, and to have a standard and the scientific research 

49 

and looking at the sampling. We need to come back and be able to 

assure that those standards were met. 

Senator BAUCUS. I would suggest that you kind of figure out 

what those standards should be so that they are locked in place 

now. 

Mr. KENNEDY. We would like those standards put into the plan, 

and we will be working with our extension agent and our folks in 

the county. We do have some folks that are experts in these fields. 

We can bring that information back to the people. 

Senator BAUCUS. Is there anything you heard from the other two 

panelists you would like to comment on? Did anybody say something so outrageous it needs a response? 

I am saying that somewhat facetiously. 

No, the panel that preceded you. Did any of the two witnesses 

say anything that you would like to respond to? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I think I would like to talk about DOT and the 

monitoring. The city of Laurel did come forward and they were 

worried about the high water. Everyone has been worried about the 

high water, Senator, and we have had record snowpack in the 

mountains. We were lucky that we didn’t get 90 degree temperatures the end of May, first of June like we have had before, but 

the water went up. We had major flooding in different areas. We 

had scouring under bridges. 

So the city of Laurel was right to call and say they had some real 

concerns. Their concerns were very legitimate. I think they were 

looked at and they moved on because it was high water and you 

couldn’t get anybody on the river. But I really do think that when 

local government, be it the municipality, be it the county, calls, we 

really do need to get in-depth and look at what could happen in the 

future. 

And I think the one thing that we are looking at now is we 

haven’t had flooding like this since 1978 naturally. Our last flooding on the Yellowstone River was down in the Huntley area back 

in 1998. So I think we all became a little at ease with the river. 

We have gone through the drought years and I think we need to 

beef it up and everyone needs to respond to high waters. 

Senator BAUCUS. Great. Thank you very much. 

I will turn to Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for this 

hearing. This is very important because the event is very significant and also as a Louisianan, I take great interest in this because 

we obviously will have many, many pipelines with the same potential vulnerability. 

I have several questions for Mr. Pruessing. 

Mr. Pruessing, there has been a lot of discussion in the media 

on conflicting timing about how long it took to shut down the oil 

flow from the pipeline. And I have tried to follow this carefully, but 

I have gotten confused. Can you describe that process in some detail and in particular why couldn’t you simply close the block 

valves on either side of the Yellowstone River first? 

Mr. PRUESSING. Thank you very much for your question, Senator. 

First of all, let me run through the chronology of what occurred on 

the evening of July 1st. This particular pipeline is operated out of 

our Operations Control Center in Houston, Texas. That is where 

50 

we operate all of our pipelines across the United States. That is a 

typical technology for pipeline companies to have trained experts 

and all of the equipment in a single control center where you can 

operate the pipelines, the pumps, the valves from that one spot. 

At 10:40 p.m. Mountain Time on July 1st, we saw a pressure 

drop on the pipeline in our control center. The operators at that 

time did not know what was actually occurring. They did not know 

if a pump had shut down, whether an instrument had failed or 

something else. They analyzed the situation for several minutes. 

When they could not determine what was going on, they made the 

decision to shut down the pumps. So those pumps were shut down 

at 10:47. So within 7 minutes, we had the pumps shut down. 

We then proceeded to close individual valves along the pipeline 

to isolate various segments of the line. Many of these obviously are 

remotely controlled valves so that the operator in the control center 

could press a button and actually close some of those valves. 

Shutting down a pipeline is not like turning off your faucet in 

your home. You can’t just close the valve and have everything shut 

off. The problem is you have large amounts of mass moving at high 

velocity down the pipeline. When that occurs, if you were to close 

the valve all of a sudden, you could over-pressure a line. That is 

an issue for liquid pipelines, and so we have a number of various 

valves along the pipeline to isolate various segments and it is a 

rather detailed and complex procedure to make sure that you isolate various segments properly without creating additional problems. 

We actually isolated the valve right at the riverbank at 11:36, so 

it took us 49 minutes to close that valve from the time the pumps 

were shut down to the time that valve was closed. We actually still 

at that point did not know specifically at what site we may have 

an issue. It was not until 11:45 p.m. or approximately 9 minutes 

later that we received a call from the Fire Department of the city 

of Laurel to our control room that there was the smell of petroleum 

near the Laurel crossing. And that was really the first indication 

that we had to pinpoint where the issue was. 

We then proceeded to contact the NRC at 12:19, so just over 30 

minutes after the time when we had actually pinpointed the issue, 

we called the NRC. 

So this is the data that we have provided to PHMSA right from 

the very beginning. There has not been any change in this data. 

As was mentioned earlier by Ms. Quarterman, they have actually 

come and visited our control center and gone through the log of the 

various steps that were taken and when the valves were closed, but 

that is the actual details of the actual shutdown process. 

Senator VITTER. OK, thank you. 

We have obviously seen reports of plenty of wildlife impacts. But 

apart from direct wildlife impact, there clearly must have been impact to soil and plants on the banks of the river that will impact 

wildlife, including fish. What are you doing to address that, which 

relates to wildlife impact? 

Mr. PRUESSING. We are working closely with the full unified command, of course led by the EPA; working with the State DEQ and 

ourselves as the responsible party. Each day, we go out and survey 

the river using aerial flights as well as walking the river to identify 

51 

where there are patches that need to be responded to. That data 

is sent back on a daily basis and the plan is amended to identify 

where you are going to send resources out the next day to do the 

cleanup work. As was mentioned, we have over 500 people now out 

on the banks of the river doing the cleanup. 

The actual oil that was spilled, probably one of three things happened to it. A portion of it evaporated, as was mentioned earlier. 

A portion of it was broken apart and will biodegrade in the river 

naturally. And then a portion of it obviously got pushed out to the 

edges of the river where we are having to do the cleanup. 

As the river continues to recede, we will be able to get to more 

areas. We are working with the Unified Command on a daily basis 

to identify what areas to go out and respond to and make sure that 

we have the resources in the right places. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Before the break, for weeks or even months, 

there was obviously high water and flooding potential. Given that 

before the break, what do you do to think about and ensure pipeline safety? 

Mr. PRUESSING. We have a very detailed integrity management 

program that we apply to all of our pipelines. And this is just another one that is in that program. Certainly, the first step, as was 

mentioned earlier today, is that we are required to do a risk assessment on all of our pipelines to make sure that we understand what 

potential risks are there. 

This particular line had an in-line inspection in 2009. And again 

as was mentioned earlier, that did not uncover any issues from an 

integrity standpoint. 

Senator VITTER. I don’t want to cut you off, but I am really talking about specific to the high water and the flooding threat fairly 

near before the rupture. What did that provoke or not provoke on 

your part? 

Mr. PRUESSING. We had taken the step in December, 2010 to do 

the depth-of-cover survey to confirm that we had adequate depth 

of cover in the river. Again, as was mentioned earlier, we have 

been working with the city of Laurel really over several months as 

they raised concerns about erosion of the south bank. 

The south bank by itself had a lot of depth of cover and we confirmed that with this same depth-of-cover survey. That was about 

12 feet. But we did confirm the depth of cover under the riverbank. 

In addition, we actually shut down the pipeline for a day in May 

to step back and do a further risk assessment to look at all the 

data PHMSA had and that we had to identify if there were any 

issues that could cause us additional concern. This is a process that 

we would normally do when we have river flooding. 

I will just give you an example. Obviously, you are from the 

State of Louisiana. We have had to respond to the issues with Mississippi flooding this year. When they were talking about opening 

the Morganza Spillway for the first time since 1973, we identified 

several pipelines we have that cross the Atchafalaya River. The 

last time that Morganza Spillway was open, we had some issues 

with our pipelines in 1973. 

So we did a risk assessment. We decided that it was too great 

a risk based on history and based on the details of those lines. We 

52 

actually shut those lines down and filled them with water before 

the Morganza Spillway was opened. 

We were fortunate that those pipes were not damaged at the 

time, even when the additional water was flowing in the 

Atchafalaya. And we later worked with PHMSA to put those back 

in service. But we used that same kind of process here on the Yellowstone crossing. We looked at the risks. We looked at all the details on pipeline integrity. We looked at the depth of cover. We 

looked from a broad perspective, did we feel like we had any risks 

even with the high water. At that time, we concluded that we had 

a safe pipeline and so we put it back in service. 

Obviously, something happened here that we do not yet understand, something very unusual. And we are very anxious to complete our investigation as well so that we can learn from that. 

Senator VITTER. Mr. Chairman, if I could just ask one more question. 

Senator BAUCUS. Absolutely. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you for your courtesy. 

We have heard about EPA testing air and water. Is Exxon conducting any independent testing? Is anyone else conducting completely separate independent testing, NIH, CDC, anybody like 

that? 

Mr. PRUESSING. Right after the incident occurred and we had 

identified where it had occurred, we started doing industrial hygiene testing of the air. That was in place within just several hours 

of the time that we knew we had an issue to deal with. Fortunately, that also did not show any particular issues from an air 

standpoint, but we did put that in place right away. 

Once the Unified Command was in place, we have tried to work 

our activities through the Unified Command so that we have full 

alignment with the EPA and the Montana DEQ. 

Senator VITTER. OK. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BAUCUS. Thank you. 

Senator Lautenberg, we would like to hear from you. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. I ask consent that 

my full opening statement be entered in the record. 

Senator BAUCUS. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Lautenberg was not received 

at time of print.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Pruessing, I want to ask you, how 

many times has PHMSA come to Exxon and asked about problems 

with the Silvertip pipeline? 

Mr. PRUESSING. PHMSA does regular audits and inspections of 

all of our integrity program. They actually did a very detailed assessment of this particular Silvertip line in June of this year. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Had you been notified of any problems 

that they saw? Let’s talk about a period from 2002 to 2003 on. 

Mr. PRUESSING. The last time that we did an actual in-line inspection was in 2009. After that inspection was completed, PHMSA 

looked at those records and they identified four or five things that 

53 

they wanted us to respond to. They were not particularly integrity 

issues on the pipeline, but they were items that they identified that 

we needed to improve. That included removing some vegetation 

near a portion of the pipeline; adding some paint on a portion that 

was above ground; doing some additional walking patrols on the 

pipeline and not just aerial patrols; actually correcting some small 

packing leaks on the top of some valve bonnets. 

But those were things that all were responded to and at the time 

that this incident occurred, we did not have any outstanding issues 

from a regulatory standpoint on this pipeline. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, I have a list of criticism and complaints that PHMSA talked to ExxonMobil about going back to 

January 30 , 2003: proposed compliance order; notice of amendment; February 18, 2005, probable violation; compliance order; proposed civil penalty and notice of amendment. 

The list goes on. There are nine of those, and that doesn’t sound 

like it is very insignificant or relatively minor things to me. I am 

sure you are aware of these. Would you say they are minor? 

Mr. PRUESSING. Senator, any time that an item is identified by 

the regulatory agency, we need to respond to it quickly. Again, the 

normal process that the regulatory agency uses to notify the operator of issues they need to respond to are the type of items you 

talked about, notice of probable violation or those type of documents that are sent to us. It is the mechanism by which they inform us to go respond. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, let’s look as recently as June 8th in 

2010. A warning letter was sent based on a 2009 standard inspection. The issues were raised. The breakout tank mixer was leaking 

and in poor working condition and the tank was operated by 

ExxonMobil’s refinery. On June 8th, also 2010, based on 2009, inadequate procedures for breakout tank maintenance and operator 

corrected its procedures. The case was closed. 

But it seems to me that there is a frequency of issues that question whether ExxonMobil here is doing what they have to protect 

the safety and the well being. I mean, this accident here didn’t 

come without having had several warnings about conditions on the 

pipeline. 

Now, has ExxonMobil responded to these and gotten an approval 

from PHMSA that says, OK, these things were taken care of? 

Mr. PRUESSING. Yes, Senator. Actually by the time we received 

that warning letter, all of those items had already been taken care 

of. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So it was just a coincidence that these 

things happen and here was this breakout that it did the kind of 

damage that it did. It doesn’t sound very efficient to me. There 

seem to be a series of things that needed attention, and why they 

had to be called to the attention of a company like ExxonMobil to 

avoid problems here. It looks like these things were leading up to 

the problem that ultimately resulted in this terrible accident. 

Mr. PRUESSING. Well, we certainly take our responsibilities very 

seriously. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, it doesn’t suggest it, the list of these. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to put this list on the record. 

Senator BAUCUS. Without objection. 

54 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

Senator BAUCUS. I thank the Senator. 

I just have a couple of questions, speaking to Mr. Pruessing. 

You mentioned a pressure drop noted in Houston. I am just curious how all this works. Is there a control room and people look at 

dials? 

Mr. PRUESSING. Yes, there is a control room about the size of this 

room; a number of computer screens where they bring in information from our pipelines across the Country. Some of that information comes in on telephone line. Some of it is sent through satellites. But they are able to monitor all of our pipelines, valve positions, pump conditions. 

Senator BAUCUS. In this case, I am just curious, is there somebody watching the gauge go down? Or is there a computer program 

that is programmed so that if there is a certain percent drop in 

pressure a bell goes on, a light flashes? I am just curious what happens here. 

Mr. PRUESSING. All of those are accurate. We have people sitting 

watching the screens. We have a number of alarms that have already been identified and pre-set that would give an operator indication if something unusual were happening. So all of those are accurate. 

Senator BAUCUS. Do you know what happened in this case? 

Mr. PRUESSING. In this particular case, they did get an alarm for 

the drop in pressure. They immediately called in their supervisors 

who tried to look at it and see if they could understand what was 

happening. And when they couldn’t figure out exactly what had occurred, they decided to take the step to shut down the pumps. 

Senator BAUCUS. How many sensors are there on this line between Houston and Laurel? 

Mr. PRUESSING. I don’t know the specific number of sensors. I 

would certainly be glad to get back to you with that specific number. But we have a number of different pressure and flow meters 

along lines to be able to monitor a pipeline. I will have to get back 

to you on the specifics on this line. 

Senator BAUCUS. If you would. I am curious. Some timeline I saw 

a block valve was shut and then reopened for may 10, 15 minutes, 

something like that. What was that all about? 

Mr. PRUESSING. That is accurate. Well actually, again when we 

did not know exactly what was occurring, but we looked at what 

had happened and where the pressure drop occurred, the operators 

determined that since the line slopes down into one of our delivery 

points at one of the local refineries, that reopening that valve 

would drain oil away from that segment of the oil and have it delivered into the customer. 

So that was done from a safety perspective to say let’s get the 

oil away from portions of the line where we may have an issue 

until we determine it. So it was reopened consciously to try to get 

the oil to drain by gravity into the delivery point. It was later reclosed to make sure that we had fully isolated the line. 

Senator BAUCUS. Where is that block valve, the one in question? 

Mr. PRUESSING. That particular valve is north of the Yellowstone 

River, downstream of where the event occurred. 

55 

Senator BAUCUS. So that was reopened in order to get oil flowing 

down hill? 

Mr. PRUESSING. Yes. And I would also add that at the river 

crossing, there is actually a check valve which allows flow only to 

go one way, so there was already a restriction there to prevent oil 

from flowing back. But again, it is a down hill slope, so reopening 

that valve would just allow the oil to drain into the delivery point. 

Senator BAUCUS. I find it a little concerning that it took somebody not working for the company to tell you that you had a leak. 

That is the Laurel folks who notified you first with a telephone 

call, rather than the company itself with its sensors and gauges 

and computer program figuring it out. 

Mr. PRUESSING. That is certainly something that the industry 

continues to work on, trying to develop new technology on how to 

monitor varied lines and make sure that we have the right sensors 

to be able to pinpoint when there is an issue. 

Senator BAUCUS. And ExxonMobil is committed to fully cleaning 

up? 

Mr. PRUESSING. Absolutely. 

Senator BAUCUS. How much has the company budgeted for the 

cleanup? 

Mr. PRUESSING. Right now, we are not worried about budgets. 

We are worried about putting the resources on getting the spill 

cleaned up. 

Senator BAUCUS. So you are just going to get it done irrespective 

of the cost? 

Mr. PRUESSING. That is correct. 

Senator BAUCUS. A lot of landowners are a little concerned, as 

is Mr. McBurney about his property values on down the road. 

There is a lot of cleanup here. I commend EPA and I commend 

ExxonMobil for all that work. 

But to be honest about it, it is Mr. McBurney and other landowners who are a little concerned about what is going to be the 

value of the land. Will there be waste from the oil residue, something left 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 15 years from now? 

Montanans want to know that, that it is going to be in good shape. 

So can I ask you, next year or the year after or even 5 years from 

now, when landowners show that their property is damaged, would 

you commit to me today to make them whole? 

Mr. PRUESSING. Well, first of all, Mr. McBurney, let me just 

apologize to you personally for the troubles that we have caused 

and we are committed to stand behind the complete cleanup. 

As far as longer-term sampling, we want to work with EPA and 

Montana DEQ and other officials to make sure that we have an 

agreed plan and what that is. And we have not set a specific plan 

and what that sampling will be. We will work with all the applicable agencies to make sure that is put in place so that we do not 

have the concerns. 

Senator BAUCUS. You didn’t really answer my question. My question was, will you commit to me today to make them whole, when 

several years from now they can show that their land has been 

damaged? 

Mr. PRUESSING. We certainly will pay all legitimate claims. 

Senator BAUCUS. Including drops in land values? 

56 

Mr. PRUESSING. I will certainly ask our people who handle those 

kinds of claims to get involved in that, but certainly we now have 

over 40 people on the ground up there to respond to all of the concerns of the people in the community, and we want to work those 

all individually. We don’t have any set formula for anything. We 

want to work with the individual landowners and make sure that 

we address all of the issues that we have caused. 

Senator BAUCUS. It sounds like you are kind of pulling your 

punches a little bit. On the one hand, Exxon says it is going to 

make everybody whole. On the other hand, if there is still damage 

five or 6 years from now that can be demonstrated because of the 

oil spill, you are not saying you are going to compensate that landowner. 

Mr. PRUESSING. No, again we will stand behind honoring all legitimate claims. 

Senator BAUCUS. So if Mr. McBurney, for example, five, 6 years 

from now has something in his file that shows that there is still 

damage on his land because of the oil spill, and he tries to sell it 

and the sale price is 30 percent below what it otherwise would be, 

you will make up that 30 percent? 

Mr. PRUESSING. Well, that is why it is really important that we 

work with the applicable agencies to make sure we do the necessary soil testing now so that we can determine if there is any 

issue with regard to the land. So we certainly want to work very 

closely with all the agencies to make sure that proper testing is 

done now. 

Senator BAUCUS. I understand. But if it can be shown that there 

is still damage that has reduced land value, do you commit to making him whole? 

Mr. PRUESSING. Yes. If there is a legitimate claim that is tied to 

the oil spill, then we certainly will honor that. 

Senator BAUCUS. OK. Thank you. 

Just a couple of questions about trenching versus drilling. I understand that just to be safe that Exxon is going to replace the current line with a drilled line. Is that correct? 

Mr. PRUESSING. That is correct. That has been the recommendation of PHMSA and we certainly agree with that. We had actually 

independently come to that conclusion that would be the necessary 

technology to replace it. 

The technology of directional drilling really became prominent in 

the mid–1990’s. Prior to that, especially when you have underwater 

areas where pipelines are buried, it was normal to ditch that and 

have it be covered over with just the riverbed. But today, using directional drill technologies is more commonplace, particularly in 

river crossings. 

Senator BAUCUS. What about the rest of the rivers in Montana? 

Some are trenched, I think. 

Mr. PRUESSING. We are in the process now of doing a risk assessment on all of the river crossings on the Silvertip, consistent with 

the order we received from PHMSA. Part of that process started 

this week. We actually brought in a boat with side-scan sonar technology instrumentation. We have done an initial sounding in the 

Billings crossing, which is not where the incident occurred, but 

57 

where it crosses back across the river to get to the ExxonMobil refinery. 

The initial data did not indicate any exposed pipe, but we will 

be working with PHMSA and EPA and Montana DEQ on the specific procedures to do that in greater depth so that we actually 

know where the lines are located in that crossing. So that is something that we need to do and certainly agree to make sure that the 

river crossings are safe on the rest of this line. 

Senator BAUCUS. I appreciate that. 

Mr. McBurney, I heard you say you are a little concerned about 

testing a little bit, like the EPA folks came out and really had a 

limited sampling, if I heard you correctly. Although I hear some 

think EPA is doing a pretty decent job, as is Exxon doing a pretty 

decent job. But just sometimes the devil is in the details. 

If you could just again expand upon some of the cleanup that you 

have experienced and how widespread it is and should it be better, 

from your perspective. 

Mr. MCBURNEY. Well, first let me say it is an evolving process. 

Most of my concerns are down the road a year from now when this 

is over, 2 years, 3 years. Next year, am I going to have hay? What 

is it going to look like? 

As far as my place in particular, tomorrow I have a meeting with 

a soil expert in Billings is going to come out to my house and a 

representative of Exxon is going to be there. And we are going to 

talk and see if Crawford Insurance Company will pay to have this 

guy do some testing so I can have that. You know, a site-specific 

analysis of my property is what I feel like I need, and more than 

one sample of the soil under my pasture. 

The oil impacted my pasture progressively. The more river water 

came in, the more oil I had. So I felt like I needed multiple tests 

on my soil. And the other thing is I had ponding of water with oil 

in it, and that is different. It is a different impact, I am afraid, 

than just the oil rushing over the surface of the ground and then 

flushing on down the river. 

I had a pond of water on my property. The oil came in and 

stayed and the water evaporated. So I am a little concerned about 

that. 

But I do think EPA is on the job. I heard a rumor that they were 

going to do more thorough soil analysis on selected parcels, but I 

am not in the loop, so to speak on a lot of that. 

Senator BAUCUS. OK. But to feel better assured, what would you 

like to know and who would you like to give that information? Is 

it EPA? Is it the county? Is it Exxon? 

Mr. MCBURNEY. I would like somebody to know. Like I said in 

my testimony, we went to a meeting last week, a week ago today, 

and there wasn’t really anybody there that crossed that agricultural versus scientific oil boundary. There was kind of a gap there. 

And I am hoping that I can hire his guy and that is his region of 

expertise, and that I can have at least for myself, I can have those 

issues resolved. 

I am not convinced that my property is irreparably damaged. I 

really don’t know. I don’t know how much oil is on my property. 

It is an unknown. It is a source of worry for me. 

58 

Senator BAUCUS. Right. So let me ask Mr. Pruessing, what is the 

best way to help Mr. McBurney out here? He is concerned about 

oil as it mixes with hay land and so forth, ag and oil and so forth. 

How can we help him out? 

Mr. PRUESSING. Yes, this is a very good example of what I spoke 

about earlier, about wanting to work with each individual landowner individually because their concerns may be different or their 

issues may be different. 

If we need to get additional expertise out there that meets this 

bridge between science and agriculture, then we will find that kind 

of resource to help address these issues. 

Senator BAUCUS. Mr. Kennedy, any thoughts on that one? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Senator, this is a perfect example of every individual landowner that has been affected. When we say make them 

whole, this plan should incorporate a piece so it is individualized 

for each one of them that we address their issues, be it 10 acres, 

be it 20 acres, be it 160 acres that are long the river. And I think 

we can do that. 

The No. 1 area that you are talking about is between our extension agent and some other experts, we should be able to get a 

standard and know what may happen over the next five, 6 years 

and see what those samplings are. 

Our biggest problem is the samplings have taken so long to get 

the results back. And with that, we are not quite sure the 

samplings have been taken and we haven’t had the results back. 

Senator BAUCUS. Why does it take so long? Do they have to be 

sent someplace or do we need more resources to sample? Why does 

it take so long? 

Mr. KENNEDY. I can’t answer that question. EPA has said they 

have taken the sampling and have not gotten the results back. 

That was our biggest frustration for the first four or 5 days is how 

come it is taking so long if this is an emergency situation. Can’t 

we get at least some results back right away for the public? 

And I think that is where Scott is, is knowing that after he has 

certain areas of his property that he wants sampled, and knowing 

what is there and then possibly monitoring it in 1 year and 2 years 

from now to check and see. And what those levels are. And I guess 

with the county, we would like to know what those levels are and 

see what the standards are so we can actually go back and say 

these are the standards that have been set up. 

Senator BAUCUS. OK, we all want to help each other out here. 

So what can I do to help any of you three, landowners especially? 

We are here to serve the landowners, so any thoughts on what can 

I do to help move this along? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Senator, I would say No. 1 is the cooperation of 

the agencies working together. And by you insisting on the agencies working together and expedite some of these results so we can 

get the plan and then working with the landowners. 

No. 2 would be the pipeline is going to have to go through and 

being able to get that pipeline drilled and so it is safe and get oil 

back into the refinery is another issue that we have in our community. There are 280 employees there. 

No. 3 is that what we need to do is all of us make sure that our 

landowners, the people that live in our county that have been afVerDate Aug 31 2005 08:08 Apr 24, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\23821.TXT VERNE
59 

fected, are satisfied with the results that are coming forward. And 

I think as we go forward on that, just your involvement with this 

brings a lot of credibility as we work with these Federal agencies. 

Senator BAUCUS. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Pruessing, do you need any help with PHMSA or anybody? 

EPA or anybody? 

Mr. PRUESSING. No, they have actually been, EPA and PHMSA 

have both been very professional in working with us, providing us 

direction, and helping us work through these problems. 

Senator BAUCUS. Mr. McBurney? 

Mr. MCBURNEY. Well, I would like to echo Bill’s sentiment on 

getting the pipe going again. A lot of my friends work at 

ExxonMobil and I know a lot of contractors that do work there as 

well. So it is important to the community. 

I appreciate you letting me come and be here. You have done 

something already. 

Senator BAUCUS. I hope to. It is a goal. 

Mr. MCBURNEY. Yes. Like I said, it is important to me to have 

a report about my property. And as a landowner, I would think 

that other landowners would want the same thing. I really don’t 

know if that is true, but that is kind of what I would like to have 

in my back pocket is a site-specific report detailing the impact, 

what was done, conclusions, that kind of thing. If I could show 

somebody or tell somebody like a hay customer asking, you know, 

is this hay going to have oil in it? Or if I go to sell my place a couple years from now and somebody I would have to disclose it to him 

that I have that issue. 

Senator BAUCUS. Have you asked for that? 

Mr. MCBURNEY. From Exxon? 

Senator BAUCUS. From anybody, Exxon or EPA? 

Mr. MCBURNEY. No. Well, I asked for soil sampling. But as I 

said, I think EPA is going to get to it. I don’t know whether it is 

going to be site-specific like I want. 

Senator BAUCUS. It is a good idea. I think some site-specific assessment of each person’s land for the reasons you indicate makes 

good sense. And let’s push for that. 

Before we finish up, I should have done this earlier, hold up 

some photographs of the flooding. Here is one. I suppose that is 

just below Laurel. Yes? You can see the oil there, black, the Yellowstone River. It was high. 

OK, next? Here are some folks doing the cleanup. It is laborious 

work, but they are out there working at it. 

OK. Here is another photograph of the oil, with the river off to 

the side. 

OK. Here is another you can see the oil caught from the sides 

in the trees and so forth, and how high the water is. You may recognize the land here, Scott, and know who that is. I don’t know 

whose property that is, but it is up there. You mentioned within 

an inch of your house. This reminds me of that. 

Of course, here is another oil spot on the side. 

The river is moving along pretty quick and high, so it pushed, 

as you know, the oil up on the side because it was so high. 

OK. I want to just remind everybody that anybody who wants to 

submit additional testimony, the record will be open for 2 weeks. 

60 

And I say that especially for people from Montana who may want 

to submit additional testimony. The record will be open for two 

more weeks. 

So this won’t be the last of it. We will be following up. 

Thank you very much, everybody. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:03 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Chairman Baucus, thank you for holding today’s hearing. The Yellowstone River 

is truly one of America’s great treasures and we all share your concern with the 

recent spill. In addition, we all owe a debt of gratitude to the work crews from EPA, 

Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana State and local agencies, and 

others who for the past 2 weeks have worked long hours to protect health and wildlife in the affected area. 

As Congress examines this incident the most important order of business should 

focus on three priorities: 

• Mitigate and contain the environmental impacts; 

• Provide assistance to those affected; and 

• Investigate the causes so we can prevent a mishap of this kind from happening 

again. 

And I would add this: let’s avoid overreacting. Now this incident is serious—perhaps 750 to 1,000 barrels of oil were spilled into the river. But, unfortunately, I’m 

afraid that this spill has occasioned some misguided calls against pipelines and oil 

development. Already, some politicians have leveraged this spill in opposition to the 

expansion of the Keystone pipeline which would double the amount of crude we receive from Canada, reducing our imports from overseas. 

Instead, let’s look to the common sense testimony of one of today’s witnesses, 

Scott McBurney, a local landowner adjacent to the spill on the Yellowstone. He said, 

‘‘I need oil, it’s just a fact of life, there’s no such thing as a plug-in tractor. This 

country needs oil. More than that, we need the jobs the oil industry brings to Eastern Montana. The Yellowstone Valley is a better place because the Exxon/Mobil refinery is here. I know a lot of people would take exception to this opinion, but I believe it.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, he’s right. This country needs oil. It’s important that our response 

to this tragedy be measured, and it be based on facts. Let’s avoid getting sidetracked 

by other issues like the Keystone pipeline that will needlessly complicate efforts to 

address the current spill. I’m looking forward to hearing from all our witnesses 

today. 

Æ