U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

43–308 PDF 2008

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PIPELINE 

INSPECTION, PROTECTION, ENFORCEMENT, AND SAFETY ACT OF 

2006 

(110–147) 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

TRANSPORTATION AND 

INFRASTRUCTURE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 25, 2008 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

( 

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman 

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Vice 

Chair 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

BOB FILNER, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania 

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington 

RICK LARSEN, Washington 

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts 

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HEATH SHULER, North Carolina 

MICHAEL A. ACURI, New York 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

VACANCY 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

DON YOUNG, Alaska 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

TED POE, Texas 

DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JOHN R. ‘RANDY’ KUHL, JR., New York 

LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia 

CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, JR., Louisiana 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia 

MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida Chairwoman 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

NICK LAMPSON, Texas 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio, Vice Chair 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota 

(ex officio) 

BILL SHUSTER, Pennylvania 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

GARY G. MILLER, California 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania 

SAM GRAVES, Missouri 

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania 

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida 

LYNN A. WESTMORELND, Georgia 

JOHN L. MICA, Florida 

(ex officio) 

(III) 

(V) 

CONTENTS Page 

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

TESTIMONY 

Johnson, Hon. Carl T., Administrator, Pipelines and Hazardous Materials 

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

by Stacey L. Gerard, Assistant Administrator .................................................. 4 

Sammon, John, Assistant Administrator for Transportation, Sector Network 

Management, Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security ............................................................................................... 4 

Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L., Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 4 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Brown, Hon. Corrine, of Florida ............................................................................. 22 

Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois .......................................................................... 28 

Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., of Maryland ............................................................... 29 

Larsen, Hon. Rick, of Washington .......................................................................... 32 

Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota ................................................................. 33 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES 

Johnson, Carl T. ....................................................................................................... 38 

Sammon, John ......................................................................................................... 66 

Scovel, III, Hon. Calvin L. ...................................................................................... 71 

vi 


43308.001
vii 


43308.002
viii 


43308.003
ix 


43308.004
x 


43308.005
xi 


43308.006
xii 


43308.007
xiii 


43308.008
xiv 


43308.009
xv 


43308.010
xvi 


43308.011
xvii 


43308.012
(1) 

HEARING ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 

PIPELINE INSPECTION, PROTECTION, ENFORCEMENT, AND SAFETY ACT OF 2006 

Wednesday, June 25, 2006 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:20 a.m., in Room 

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Corrine 

Brown [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Ms. BROWN. Will the Subcommittee officially come to order, the 

Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials? 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on Implementation of the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and 

Safety Act of 2006. 

This will be the first hearing that the Subcommittee has held on 

pipeline safety since taking over jurisdiction on this issue at the beginning of the Congress. 

One of the top priorities of the Committee when the Democrats 

took over was to expand the oversight role that was lacking, and 

allowing the Administration to go unchecked by Congress. 

Nowhere is this oversight more necessary than the pipeline infrastructure in this Country, which transports billions of gallons of 

fuel, natural gas, and hazardous materials. This is a critical issue 

as we struggle to make our Nation’s infrastructure safe from accidents and secure from attacks. It is also clear that pipeline accidents don’t just impact the communities where they happen; they 

can impact the entire U.S. economy. 

Every day in the U.S. millions of gallons of fuel and other hazardous liquids travel through 2.2 billion miles of pipeline that deliver these important commodities to local towns and businesses. In 

my home State of Florida, we have nearly 32,000 miles of pipelines, 

and as recently as November we had a pipeline accident that badly 

injured a teenager and forced the evacuation of 3,000 homes. Sadly, 

my State is one of only two States that has failed to accept Federal 

matching funds from the Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration, but I plan to work very closely with the State to 

ensure that they take advantage of this opportunity, and I have 

discussed this with the panel. 

2 

The Nation’s pipeline safety program was strengthened and reauthorized through 2010 by the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006. 

The Act requires the Department of Transportation and pipeline 

operators to implement an integrity management program for gas 

distribution pipes and to ensure that all low stress hazardous liquid pipelines are subject to the same standards as other hazardous 

liquid pipelines. It strengthened PHMSA’s authority to ensure corrective action from pipeline operation and to help restore pipeline 

operation during disasters. The legislation also increased inspectors 

by 50 percent and required the certification of safety programs by 

senior company executives. 

Unfortunately, PHMSA has failed to fully implement the statutory mandate contained in the PIPES Act, which was due by December 31st, 2007. But had I known, Mr. Johnson, that announcing 

a hearing on this issue would have prompted us to get many of the 

things that we requested earlier, I would have held a hearing earlier. Since the hearing was announced on May 16th, they have 

done some quick work and issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

on the distribution pipeline integrity management directive, and 

two reports relating to corrosion control and leak detection were 

sent to Congress last Monday evening. I wish we got that kind of 

reaction out of the Department on other issues this Subcommittee 

deals with. 

On security matters, a DOT Inspector General’s assessment of 

the state of pipeline security that was mandated by the PIPES Act, 

and released last month, made it clear that much additional work 

was needed by PHMSA and TSA to ensure safety of public and the 

environment. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s panelists on what additional progress is being made by these agencies to fully implement 

the PIPES Act and to address the concerns raised in the Inspector 

General’s report. 

Before I yield to Mr. Shuster, I ask that Members be given 14 

days to revise and extend their remarks and be permitted to submit any additional statements and material by Members and witnesses. Without objection, so ordered. 

I yield to Mr. Shuster for his opening statement. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this 

hearing. Thank you for yielding to me. This hearing on the Pipeline 

Inspection, Protection, Enforcement and Safety Act of 2006, or better known as the PIPES Act, it is important that we hold this hearing because there has been a delay, but I think, from what I have 

seen and heard, that they are moving forward, and I want to thank 

Mr. Johnson and Ms. Gerard for your efforts. 

I also want to welcome the other folks that are here, Mr. Scovel 

and Mr. Sammon, for being here today. 

This is our first hearing in this Congress on the pipeline safety, 

and it comes at an interesting time for the pipeline community. 

PHMSA is in the process of implementing many of the statutory 

requirements that were set forth in the PIPES Act, and the PIPES 

Act set a very ambitious schedule for PHMSA. The agency was required, as we heard, to have their report on a variety of issues by 

December 31st of 2007. That was approximately a year after the 

3 

President signed the bill into law. While PHMSA was unable to 

meet most of these deadlines, I am happy to see, as I said, there 

is substantial progress being made in implementing the key regulatory requirements set forth by the bill. 

One of the success stories for the agency and the PIPES Act has 

been in the area of damage prevention. PHMSA and the Common 

Ground Alliance just celebrated the one-year anniversary of their 

national 811 Call Before You Dig public awareness campaign and 

was recently awarded the Silver Anvil Award for the Public Relations Society of America, so congratulations for that. 

In addition, PHMSA is actively involved in advancing State pipeline damage prevention programs, providing assistance the States 

need to set up State damage prevention programs that include the 

nine elements prescribed in the PIPES Act. 

On these issues of pipeline security, I look forward to hearing 

from all the witnesses today and to hopefully hear about better coordination between the responsibilities of the TSA and PHMSA in 

this area. The inspector general has released a report on these efforts in May, and I look forward to his summary and to hear of 

PHMSA’s and TSA’s reaction to the report. 

So thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this hearing, and 

I yield back. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Washington, 

Mr. Larsen, be allowed to participate in today’s hearing and sit and 

ask any questions of the witnesses. Without objection, so ordered. 

I would like to welcome and introduce today’s panel. Our first 

witness is the Honorable Carl T. Johnson, Administrator of Pipelines and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration; our second 

witness is the Honorable Calvin L. Scovel III, Inspector General for 

the U.S. Department of Transportation; and our third and final 

witness is Mr. John Sammon, Assistant Administrator for Transportation, Sector Network Management, at the Transportation Security Administration. He used to live in my district, in Jacksonville, Florida, where he worked as a Senior Vice President at CSX 

Railroad from 1999 through 2000. Welcome. 

Let me remind the witnesses that, under Committee rules, all 

statements must be limited to five minutes, but the entire statement will appear in the record. We will allow the entire panel to 

testify before questioning of the witnesses. 

We are pleased to have you all here this afternoon, and I now 

recognize Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson. 

4 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CARL T. JOHNSON, ADMINISTRATOR, PIPELINES AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY 

ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; 

ACCOMPANIED BY STACEY L. GERARD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR; THE HONORABLE CALVIN L. SCOVEL, III, INSPECTOR GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; 

AND JOHN SAMMON, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR 

TRANSPORTATION, SECTOR NETWORK MANAGEMENT, 

TRANSPORTATION SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Mr. JOHNSON. Chairwoman Brown, Ranking Member Shuster, 

Members of the Committee, I am pleased to discuss how the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is advancing 

pipeline safety. 

As Administrator for only six months, I am pleased to say we are 

making progress both in complying with the requirement of the 

PIPES Act and advancing overall safety performance. PHMSA has 

proposed standards for integrity management for distribution pipelines, including requiring operators to install excess flow valves in 

new construction and when the opportunity is available. PHMSA 

is addressing the requirements for operators to develop a plan to 

reduce all risks in pipeline control, including human factors like fatigue and NTSB recommendations on the mechanics of controls and 

alarms. 

PHMSA has been working to protect unusually sensitive areas 

from rural on-shore hazardous gathering lines and low stress pipelines. We issued phase one of the final rule, which covers those low 

stress lines that propose the highest risk to the environment. 

PHMSA also issued a rule for the use of safety orders as an additional option for addressing pipeline integrity threats, putting us in 

a better position to ensure operators are addressing longer term 

conditions before they degrade. 

The PIPES Act required that PHMSA evaluate leak detection 

technology and report on the effectiveness of leak detection systems. While we are working on research to advance the sensitivity 

of technology to find small leaks, we believe we have adequate 

oversight in place to evaluate leak detection capability and exercise 

authority to compel system upgrades when warranted. The final report was sent to Congress. 

Similarly, the PIPES Act mandated that we review the adequacy 

of internal corrosion for hazardous liquid pipelines and submit a 

report to Congress. Our review indicates that our existing standards to protect against internal corrosion are generally sufficient to 

allow PHMSA to achieve safety and environmental protections. 

This report was sent to Congress. 

PHMSA began providing monthly update summaries to the public of all enforcement actions through our enforcement transparency Website last year. PHMSA continues to make full use of 

its penalty authority. In 2007, PHMSA proposed civil penalties of 

$4,288,800, a 39 percent increase from 2006 and the second highest 

amount since 2002. So far, in 2008, we have proposed total civil 

penalties of $4,933,800. 

Another of our top safety priorities is strengthening our national 

damage prevention efforts. Three-fourths of all human conVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:30 Mar 17, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\43308 JASON
5 

sequences from pipeline failures occur in distribution systems. 

Sixty percent of these failures are caused by excavation damage. 

Our most important safety strategy at the distribution level is reducing construction-related damage, and I am happy to say that 

even on an annual basis you can see our efforts are paying off. This 

year we are making our first round of damage prevention grant 

awards of up to $100,000 per grant to up to 15 States. 

Moving from the State to the local level, the PIPES Act requires 

us to award three community information grants as demonstration 

projects. We have developed criteria and are working with the Congress and public interest groups to finalize them. PHMSA reviewed 

and commented, as required, on the GAO report on the seven year 

assessment interval. Last November we sent a report to Congress 

recommending that Congress amend the law to provide us the authority to promulgate risk-based standards for pipeline reassessment. 

I would like to conclude with a word about the people of PHMSA. 

This agency has a great story to tell, a critical mission, a smart 

and sound regulatory approach, and a record of success in promoting public safety and environmental protection. Like any successful organization, our greatest asset is our people. The dedicated 

men and women of PHMSA and our State partners are working 

hard, 24/7 most weeks, to oversee a network of more than 2.4 million miles of interstate and intrastate pipelines delivering essential 

energy products to communities, homes, and businesses. 

Overseeing this network means bringing to bear the best engineering and technical talent, collecting and using data, evaluating 

pipeline materials, reviewing designs, inspecting operators and 

plans on operations, bringing enforcement actions and developing 

new standards and informing the public about pipeline safety. It 

also means a lot of time in the field and on the road inspecting the 

construction of new pipelines and, regrettably, responding to pipeline incidents. We take our commitment to public safety very seriously and, from the Secretary of Transportation to every inspector 

and investigator, safety is our number one priority. 

We are making good progress and we believe it is no accident 

that the number of serious incidents in which human consequences 

is steadily trending downward. 

Thank you, and I would be pleased to answer questions. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Chairwoman Brown, Ranking Member Shuster, 

Members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate the opportunity to 

testify regarding pipeline security and the actions needed from 

DOT and DHS to enhance the security of the Nation’s pipeline infrastructure. 

Safeguarding our pipelines is a continuing challenge for DOT and 

DHS. A well-defined, well-coordinated interagency approach is absolutely critical. 

As this Subcommittee is aware, the PIPES Act directed us to assess PHMSA’s and TSA’s actions to implement the pipeline security 

annex. We issued our report last month and recommended several 

actions that PHMSA, in collaboration with TSA, must take to enhance pipeline security. 

Today we will make three points. First, PHMSA and TSA have 

made progress, but the current situation is far from an end-state, 

6 

and challenges remain. The annex required PHMSA and TSA to 

jointly develop an action plan by February 2007 to implement 

annex provisions and various program elements. 

In December 2007, we were concerned about an overall lack of 

progress on several fronts. At the time, the agencies had not finalized the action plan or completed nine of the eleven annex program 

elements. There were no deadlines to drive decisions or reviews. 

We shared our concerns with PHMSA and TSA. 

To their credit, both PHMSA and TSA addressed these issues 

earlier this year, and considerable progress has been made. The 

two agencies developed a new action plan and began addressing 

outstanding program elements and initiatives. The majority of initiatives are now planned for completion by the end of 2009. However, the action plan still does not contain all initiatives required 

by the annex, such as developing protocols for information sharing. 

Going forward, both agencies need to move with a sense of urgency 

to finalize and execute the annex. 

Second, clearer lines of authority are needed to address oversight 

and enforcement for liquified natural gas, or LNG, facilities. The 

annex does not explicitly state which agency has primary oversight 

and enforcement authority for LNG operators, an important part of 

the pipeline infrastructure. As a result, there is a lack of clearly 

defined roles at the working level. Both PHMSA and TSA review 

pipeline operators’ compliance with their respective security guidance. We note that TSA’s guidance, however, is voluntary and will 

remain unenforceable unless a regulation is issued to require compliance. Conversely, PHMSA is able to enforce its LNG security 

regulations, which existed prior to the creation of TSA in 2001. 

This may cause pipeline operators to receive conflicting or duplicative guidance. It also creates confusion as to which agency should 

be the lead Federal security regulator. 

We think PHMSA and TSA should amend the annex to delineate 

the agencies’ roles and responsibilities for LNG operators. We point 

to an interagency agreement in 2004 between PHMSA, the Coast 

Guard, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission for safety 

and security reviews of LNG facilities located near ports. This 

helped focus actions and resources and limit duplicative efforts. A 

similar approach should be taken with the pipeline security annex 

to clearly define roles and responsibilities for inland LNG facilities. 

Third, PHMSA and TSA need to maximize resources for assessing security plans and guidance. Last year, Congress passed the 9/ 

11 Commission Act, which requires DOT and DHS to develop a 

plan to review the 100 most critical operators’ security plans and 

critical facilities by August 2008. These reviews are underway. To 

determine whether additional security regulations are needed, 

PHMSA and TSA will need to evaluate and test the adequacy of 

existing security standards as agreed to under the annex. 

We see two areas where PHMSA and TSA can maximize their 

resources. First, PHMSA should participate in these inspections on 

a regular basis, especially given its level of expertise in securityrelated matters. Second, PHMSA and TSA should develop testing 

protocols and perform vulnerability tests to ascertain whether unauthorized individuals can penetrate operators’ critical infrastructure, including through cyber attacks. 

7 

DOT and DHS must move beyond coordination and leverage 

their resources and skill sets to secure the Nation’s pipelines. This 

is a fundamental factor to enhance pipeline security and take a 

proactive approach. 

That concludes my statement, Madam Chairwoman. I would be 

happy to answer any questions that you or other Members of the 

Subcommittee might have. 

Mr. SAMMON. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Brown, Ranking 

Member Shuster, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am pleased 

to have this opportunity to testify on the collaboration between 

TSA and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation. I would like to highlight how our respective agencies have different but complimentary 

roles and responsibilities to protect the security and safety of our 

Nation’s pipelines. 

To understand the context in which TSA exercises its authority 

in the security of pipeline systems, it is important to review the 

transition of responsibilities from PHMSA to TSA and DHS. 

In November 2001, the Aviation and Transportation Security Act 

established TSA within DOT. That Act gave TSA the lead responsibility for security in all modes of transportation, including pipelines. DOT retained responsibility and authority for safety. 

In November 2002, when the Homeland Security Act created 

DHS, TSA was transferred from DOT to DHS. 

In 2004, a Memorandum of Understanding between DHS and 

DOT recognized DHS as having primary responsibility for security 

in all modes of transportation. The 2006 TSA-PHMSA Annex to 

that MOU further clarifies the respective agencies’ roles. 

The evolution of TSA’s authority in transportation is most apparent in commercial aviation. The rules and responsibilities among 

airlines, airports, and air cargo industry have become well established. In the simplest terms, FAA has responsibility for enforcing 

the safety and reliability of aircraft, and TSA has responsibility for 

the security of passengers and cargo on the plane. 

Security rulemaking authorities in other modes of transportation 

are evolving. General aviation and freight rail will soon have clarifying regulations in place. Rules for training, security assessments, 

and security plans will cover highway, freight rail, and transit. 

Down the road, we are contemplating rules for pipeline and highway based upon best security practices and the direction of Section 

1557(d) of the 9/11 Act. Where DOT legacy rules govern security, 

those rules provide an important baseline and TSA supports their 

efforts. As TSA continues its rulemaking focus beyond commercial 

aviation, TSA will build upon and supersede DOT rules. That is the 

nature of our relationship. 

I would like to assure the Subcommittee that DOT, PHMSA, and 

TSA are aligned and work closely together. TSA’s Pipeline Security 

Division and the PHMSA staff communicate daily. PHMSA accompanies TSA on pipeline corporate security reviews. PHMSA attends 

TSA’s pipeline security conferences. PHMSA is a member of TSA’s 

Transportation Security Government Coordinating Council, along 

with other important pipeline working groups. PHMSA participates 

in TSA’s monthly pipeline security teleconference calls. And the 

8 

TSA-PHMSA MOU Annex working group meets at least quarterly 

to review and update action items in the plan. 

Now, the core focus of TSA’s efforts is on risk reduction and better security. The centerpiece of TSA’s pipeline security program is 

the pipeline security review. TSA assesses the corporate security 

In 2003, President Bush issued HSPD-7, giving DHS the lead 

role in the protection of certain critical infrastructure, including 

pipeline systems. TSA assesses the corporate security plans and 

programs of the top pipeline operators. We then establish a baseline to evaluate security standards and identify coverage gaps. TSA 

ranks pipeline companies on a risk basis as a means of focusing 

our security improvement efforts with those companies. TSA’s pipeline smart practices reflex lessons learned from years of corporate 

security reviews. TSA identifies and shares its best practices with 

pipeline industry representatives. Coupled with pipeline employee 

security awareness training, TSA has helped to substantially increase the effectiveness of industry security programs by making 

training available to many pipeline employees. 

In conclusion, TSA has worked hard with PHMSA and our industry stakeholders to clarify our security and safety roles. Security 

stakeholders have told us that they understand our respective roles 

and they are not confused. Our TSA team looks forward to working 

in concert with PHMSA to further align our security network and 

strengthen the network as the years go on. 

I would be pleased to answer your questions. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

We are going to start with Mrs. Napolitano to make your opening 

remarks and then ask your questions. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be brief, if 

I may. 

Thank you for the hearing. I have great interest in pipeline security, given that my district is home to major pipelines in transport 

of military and commercial fuels such that the Norwalk Tank 

Farm, which is owned and operated by the Air Force and leased 

out to a couple of private companies, has had leaks of JP-4 and JP5 for the last 20 years. And when the city wanted to ask questions, 

they were told no way, no how, no shape, no form because this is 

high security. 

I think there has to be a lot more communication and ability to 

be able to work with the communities to inform and educate them, 

and be able to take input from them. That is one of the things that 

really is of high concern to me. 

This cleanup has been going on for 15 years; there are another 

5 years to go on it. These are lines that have been there for many, 

many, many generations that have leaks. My concern is, because 

the fuel comes in from the ports and is piped, what happens if 

there are other leaks that have been buried for 20, 30, 40, 50 years 

and are going to affect the aquifers, the drinking water bodies of 

some of those areas? That is not even being covered and that is 

something that is of great concern not only to me, but many others 

who have had the unfortunate—how shall I say?—background of 

having air bases and naval bases where scraping fuel and burying 

it in pits was the modus operandi of cleaning tanks out. Now, this 

was many years ago, true, but those things are now affecting our 

9 

water. And how do we begin to deal with it is something I would 

like to cover here. 

Now, my question to Administrator Johnson, what are you doing 

to ensure that the operators are not only investing, but implementing the most effective leak detection technology? And is this 

applicable to old pipelines that have been underground for decades? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mrs. Napolitano, it is a part the integrity management program that every company does give a report and is monitored very closely on those activities. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Well, I have been on this Subcommittee a year 

and a half, and this is the first time I have ever heard that there 

is a segment of a Committee that works on these issues. I have 

been on that issue for over 20 years, and this is the first time I 

have ever learned that there was a pipeline and hazardous materials safety that had oversight over these pipelines. 

Ms. GERARD. Are you speaking of only military facilities? 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. At this point, only military, because that is 

where I have had my experience. 

Ms. GERARD. We do, under the Oil Pollution Act, review and approve the spill response plans and the issue of valves and leak detection is a part of the review. It is a five-year cycle. Every five 

years we look, unless the company has had significant changes in 

their planning. But that is one place where the Department of 

Transportation has jurisdiction over military pipelines. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Okay, but then again I am sure a lot of the 

other pipelines are built in public domain, run by private companies, and I would have the same concerns with them. 

Ms. GERARD. In the report that we sent to Congress on Monday 

on leak detection, we speak to the technology issues, where the 

challenges are. We have six research projects underway in which 

we are investigating ways to make the leak detection more sensitive. But we do discuss how we review the leak detection programs in high consequence areas. As a matter of fact, for liquid 

pipeline companies, 44 percent of our inspections have resulted in 

requesting some form of an upgrade in the leak detection capability. That report was just issued on Monday. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. I would love to have a copy of that report. I 

certainly hope that we can move a little more expeditiously in trying to figure out how to protect the general public, because a lot 

of these companies will close shop and be gone, and then it falls 

on the taxpayer to do the cleanup. And we have so many of our 

communities that will be affected, and I am talking both public and 

government. 

Ms. GERARD. I would like to add that we have restored the national pipeline mapping system to public view so that local officials 

and the public does have access to information about who operates 

the pipelines in their communities, and we have a very active 

website that could give you information as a citizen on the record 

of that operator. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. But that really doesn’t answer the question 

about testing old pipelines. 

Ms. GERARD. Well, the pipelines are required to be tested under 

the integrity management program. A liquid pipeline is required to 

be assessed using two types of technology. So any pipeline that is 

10 

an area where people could be affected by a spill, any place where 

there is a sole source of drinking water, and any place that we 

have defined as unusually sensitive is required to be tested and repeated to be tested. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. And are those broken down by districts or by 

States or by counties, because how would we know that there is an 

issue in our area or in Mr. Sires’ area? 

Ms. GERARD. The operators are required to report annually. It is 

a public record. They are required to report on their progress with 

the testing and the repair of any defect that meets the criteria 

needing repair. So those are public reports. We would be happy to 

follow up with you to help the people in your community learn how 

to find that information on our website. It is public. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. BROWN. Mr. Sires, your opening remarks or questions. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. 

I come from a district that I think there are more pipes underneath me than anywhere else. It is the northern part of New Jersey, Jersey City. We have a repository of oil in the Bayonne area 

that handles about 15 millions gallons of oil per day. 

I actually learned about the inconsistencies between the agencies 

as a result of a railroad accident that happened in Woodbridge, 

New Jersey with some of the hazardous materials. What I am concerned with is when do you inform the locals about the leak or the 

accident, the material that is spewing out of this leak? When do 

you do that? Because one of the complaints that I have from one 

of the mayors in Woodbridge on this particular derailment accident 

was that he was not informed what was in the tanks. I assume the 

same thing applies to the pipes. If there is an accident with the 

pipes, when do you inform the local community of what is happening? Do you inform it at all or do you fix it and then you tell 

them what happened? How does that work? 

Ms. GERARD. We post reports of incidents on our website. We—— 

Mr. SIRES. Ma’am, excuse me. That is not what I am asking. I 

am asking, if the accident happens, when do you tell the community, listen, there is a problem here? Because that is exactly what 

happened with the railroad derailment. He had all his EMS trucks, 

he had everybody there, and there was nobody to tell him whether 

his police officers or his management team was in danger of being 

contaminated with anything. So my question is—I know about the 

report, I heard you say it to the Congresswoman—if something 

happens in a pipe, when do you inform the community and say, 

look, this is a gas leak or whatever leak it is? Or you don’t inform 

them until you fix it? 

Ms. GERARD. We respond to accidents in which there has been 

some form of human consequence or major environmental consequence. If we are at the scene of an accident, we would be communicating with that community immediately, along with the operator. We also have strengthened our requirements for the operators 

to have public education programs. It is a fairly recent requirement, the last few years, but they have to have active programs to 

work with the locality and to inform them about their integrity 

management program. So there are many opportunities. 

11 

In addition, we work with State fire marshals on programs to 

have them involved with the community so that somebody at the 

State or local level could help identify for the community what is 

going on with the pipeline. 

Mr. SIRES. This is when the accident happens? 

Ms. GERARD. When the accident happens, if we are there—— 

Mr. SIRES. Who do you notify? 

Ms. GERARD. If we are there, we would work with the locals. 

Mr. SIRES. Well, if you are not there, is there anybody in charge 

to notify the local community—— 

Ms. GERARD. The operator would be there. The operator. 

Mr. SIRES.—that this particular leak, or whatever it is, is not 

hazardous to that community? What I am trying to get at is I know 

that you fix it and you respond, but sometimes somebody has to 

tell. In my district, everybody is on top of each other. This is a very 

congested district. So if something happens, it could hurt a lot of 

people and sometimes those communities are not informed of what 

the particular leak is. 

Ms. GERARD. It shouldn’t happen that way, and I believe that we 

are making progress with operators providing that information immediately at the time of an accident, working with the local response community. And if we are present, we would certainly see 

that that happens. So it may not be perfect, but I believe that the 

public education requirements, the emphasis we are putting on 

working with communities is making a big difference on operators’ 

programs, and we would be happy to follow up with you on that. 

Mr. SIRES. This may not be part of this hearing, but with the derailment of railroad cars in my district, Woodbridge just had a recent derailment and the mayor and everybody showed up with all 

the equipment. Nobody told them what was going on. And he is 

very upset and he wants to have an investigation; he has contacted 

my office. I just think that somebody should contact, if anything 

happens, those communities. 

Ms. GERARD. On the hazardous materials railroad side, we have 

newly awarded a grant to the International Association of Fire 

Chiefs to build a fusion center to be able to share information more 

quickly about what is going on in incidents in real time. It is an 

area that PHMSA is involved with. We are making progress. We 

are also working with DHS, who has fusion centers. I think that 

there are more resources being brought to bear on sharing information about what is going on in events and what you have to learn 

from them. 

Mr. SIRES. So, Ms. Gerard, up to now you haven’t had anything 

like that? 

Ms. GERARD. I can’t speak to, in a railroad accident, what the 

communication from the railroad operator is required to be. 

Mr. SIRES. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. BROWN. We will follow up with that question. I think that 

is an excellent question because, from talking to the staff, now it 

is really no one’s responsibility to notify that local mayor or that 

local community; they investigate, but they don’t necessarily notify? 

12 

Ms. GERARD. I am not familiar with the hazmat railroad public 

information requirements, but we will get that information for you 

and report back. 

Ms. BROWN. No, I am not talking about the railroads. I am talking about if something happens to a pipeline. If there is an accident, how is the local community notified? 

Ms. GERARD. The public education requirements for pipeline operators would speak to a range of requirements during an event in 

general about their programs. I believe we have those requirements 

covered. 

Ms. BROWN. We will come back to that. 

Mr. Larsen? 

Mr. LARSEN. Madam Chair, as you know, I am a guest of this 

Subcommittee today and I don’t want to interfere with your process. If it is appropriate for the Ranking Member to speak before 

me, then I will allow that. But, if not, I will go ahead and take my 

turn. 

I was saying I am a guest of this Subcommittee today, and I 

don’t want to get out of anyone’s turn. If it is more appropriate that 

the Ranking Member go before me, then I will take my turn after 

him. 

Ms. BROWN. He has graciously agreed to yield so we can hear 

from you all, then we will go back and forth. 

Mr. SHUSTER. It is our hospitality program. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. We have worked it out. 

Mr. LARSEN. I have always known Bill to be very hospitable, and 

I appreciate it very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

As we gear up for 2010’s rewrite of this bill, it would be the third 

one that I have been through, presuming I am here, and I guess 

the one theme that has gone through this is where the regulatory 

agency hasn’t stepped in to act, then Congress has stepped in, and 

that has manifested itself in the language of the 2002 bill and the 

2006 bill, which is why I think when we saw the 2006 bill, a lot 

of actions had been taken by the regulatory agencies at the time, 

RSPA and some others, in order to implement the 2002 bill. So I 

think as we are looking at the implementation of PIPES, to the extent that things aren’t getting done, it is going to be a much more 

involved 2010 piece of legislation unless things are getting done. 

That just seems one of the themes. 

Madam Chair, just before I continue, I do have an opening statement, but I will just enter it for the record and just continue with 

questions. 

The first question I have is for Mr. Johnson, having to do with 

PHMSA’s draft criteria for the pipeline safety information grants 

to communities. We created these grants in 2002 and reauthorized 

them in 2006, and we are only now seeing the draft criteria for 

these grants. There are a few questions that have come from the 

community about those, and you may be aware of these questions, 

so I would like to get some feedback. 

One in particular has to do with requiring a community co-sponsor for these grants to work with a pipeline operator. There is a 

concern about the independence of the plan that would be created 

from the grants if the communities are required to work actually 

13 

with the pipeline operator. Can you talk about why you think that 

might be a good idea? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Representative Larsen, I think that the idea that 

we have is to have communications among all the parties involved 

so that there is a complete understanding, and that is what we are 

hoping to achieve through that. 

Mr. LARSEN. I understand that. But do you think that that needs 

to be a requirement, then? 

Mr. JOHNSON. No, it does not need to be a requirement. It is just 

something that I think is almost intuitive, it makes sense to do. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thanks. I hear you saying it doesn’t need to be a 

requirement, and maybe that can get reflected back in the criteria. 

I think there was a concern, too, about having the community 

conduct a risk analysis for their plan and concerns that that might 

be expensive and suck up all the money they have for the grant 

to complete a risk analysis, in fact, when a risk analysis may not 

be necessary for the particular community plan that they have. 

Can you discuss why a risk analysis might be necessary when a 

community may not need to do one? 

Mr. JOHNSON. We will yield on that. 

Mr. LARSEN. That is fine. Okay, great. I would appreciate a word 

back. 

Finally, requiring a project scope to include a high consequence 

area, or an HCA. Without knowing where the HCAs are located, 

I think some concerns out of the community were how could you 

require them to include in a project scope the high consequence 

areas if they weren’t wholly familiar with where all the HCAs were 

located. 

Ms. GERARD. As the program has evolved, it has turned out that 

between 60 and 80 percent of the pipeline miles are in areas that 

could be affected by a pipeline spill, so we thought that since the 

vast majority of the pipeline falls into that category, that it would 

be a priority to award grants to a community that was in the 60 

to 80 percent. We didn’t mean it to be limiting, we just thought 

that with only a few projects it would seem best to give it to communities that have the greatest likelihood of being affected. 

Mr. LARSEN. Well, I think there might be some work still to be 

done on the criteria, to work with the communities to flush these 

out a little bit, maybe a little more flexibility on how this is dealt 

with. 

Mr. Sammon, as you are all dealing with this dance between 

TSA and PHMSA, who goes first and who goes second on which 

issues, I think I understand your rubric, if you will, that security 

is security and safety is safety, and we have examples in the FAA 

and TSA to look to. But I guess I have one concern over the last 

several years, as we have rewritten this bill a couple of times, reauthorized this bill a couple of times, has had to do with the mapping system and the reluctance and resistance to some on the security side to releasing the mapping system and then the reluctance 

from the folks on the security side to continue to allow the map to 

be available. I hope that as you are working through this in the 

future, that you are not coming to us telling us or we are hearing 

from other people that the TSA folks have decided to subsume the 

14 

national pipeline mapping system to the netherworld so no one can 

see it again. 

Mr. SAMMON. That is a very good question. We are working—— 

Mr. LARSEN. It was more of a statement. 

Mr. SAMMON. It is a very good statement. We are working with 

PHMSA. We are concerned about how much critical infrastructure 

is made available on the web, and that is obviously someone sitting 

overseas, surfing the web, looking at this stuff in terms of its accessibility, how critical it is; and, at the same time, the issue of safety 

and people being able to get to these facilities. That is why, in the 

railroad area, in terms of placarding railroad cars with hazardous 

materials, toxic inhalation chemicals and so on, we are not in favor 

of taking the placards off, because we think the first responders 

need to know and need to see what is in those railroad cars if there 

is an incident. So it is a fine line and we are trying to balance security versus safety, but we are always concerned about how much 

critical infrastructure you make available on the web; it is a balance we have to work out. 

Mr. LARSEN. I understand that, and we are here to help you find 

that balance. 

Mr. SAMMON. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LARSEN. You are very welcome. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. Shuster. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Thank you, Mr. Larsen, for being here. I know you were very involved over the past couple years in the original Act, so I appreciate you being here and you championing pipeline safety. 

Mr. Johnson, in your testimony you mention that getting ready 

for the distribution integrity management program is a lot more 

than a rule. Can you elaborate on PHMSA’s current oversight of 

the State pipeline safety programs that will help in the implementation of the DIM? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Congressman Shuster. The distribution integrity management program is probably the biggest change 

in history for pipeline regulations we have undertaken. It did require a system and we believe we have built one. It required standards that were consensus standards that had to be vetted through 

a public organization; it required guidance and training, IT for 

databases and resources; and, in addition to that, it required working with 50 States to implement a performance standards that are 

rather difficult to accomplish. It takes a lot of time and a lot of coordination and a lot of work, and I believe we have done that. We 

are proud of the work that we have done and proud of the product. 

We award State grants based on the results of these evaluations, 

the evaluations that are made by the States, and that is part of the 

whole system. 

Mr. SHUSTER. When you are implementing the DIM, how do you 

address the differences between large and small, when you have 

the 500 customers versus the hundreds of thousands of customers? 

Mr. JOHNSON. There are three actual segments: there is the large 

group, then there are groups that are called, I guess, the small and 

handy—integrity management plans groups which are less than 

15 

12,000—and then there are small units that are just dealt with like 

an apartment building or small trailer park, or something of that 

nature. They are segregated in that way and each have slightly different standards. 

Mr. SHUSTER. I also understand that there has been a surge or 

quite an increase in pipeline construction. What are you doing to 

oversee that and making certain that the new pipelines being constructed are meeting the standard? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The pipeline building boom that we are seeing 

right now is probably the largest in the last 10 years or more, and 

it is literally changing what we are doing, bringing in new designs, 

new materials, construction methods, and all the challenges that go 

with that. The PHMSA staff is spending probably about 12 percent 

of its time overseeing this activity. It is a big challenge, but it is 

something that we are committed to. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you. 

Mr. Scovel, your view on TSA doing the security and PHMSA 

safety, how is that working? Are there things falling through the 

cracks? Have they worked out communications and protocols 

enough to make sure that everybody is working together and we 

are not seeing things fall through the cracks or got left behind? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Thank you, Mr. Shuster. Your question, I think, 

goes to the working relationship between PHMSA and TSA with 

regard to security and was the subject of our report, that is, the 

implementation of the security annex through the action plan. Our 

report was released last month. 

We have found that the working relationship between the two 

agencies has been pretty good, of late especially, and we commend 

PHMSA specifically for its effort and foresight in creating a position dedicated specifically to pipeline security, as opposed to safety, 

and locating it in the Office of the Administrator, which gives it 

proper visibility. It is one-stop shopping, essentially, for PHMSA’s 

security focus and gives it a point of contact specifically for TSA. 

TSA, on the other hand, has a much smaller section to deal with 

pipeline security. There is a different focus, a different culture, 

clearly, between the two. PHMSA has a much longer history and 

a culture of willing to engage in regulation. TSA, on the other 

hand, as we have heard this afternoon already, has focused its attention on a voluntary guidance and compliance scheme, as opposed to enforceable regulations. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Who did what? What was the last thing I missed? 

Mr. SCOVEL. TSA has decided to employ a guidance and voluntary compliance scheme, as opposed to PHMSA, which has a history of being willing to regulate inappropriate cases. There is that 

culture mix that needs to be continually negotiated between the 

two agencies. 

Mr. SHUSTER. In your testimony, is that the authority that TSA 

needs to pursue to be able to enforce and regulate more aggressively on the security side? 

Mr. SCOVEL. Not necessarily. I know that Congress, with the 9/ 

11 Commission Act of 2007, directed both agencies to assess the security plans of the 100 most critical operators and their critical facilities. That effort is underway. Regulation would be the most extreme action, of course, that these agencies can take, and that may 

16 

be necessary, but until the assessment is complete it would be premature for me, certainly, to say that is the required route. It may 

be simply that modification of existing compliance plans and activities along those lines would suffice. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Sammon, do you believe you need more authority to be able to do your job? 

Mr. SAMMON. No, I think through ATSA and the kind of history 

I outlined, we have the authority. What we are doing right now is 

following the explicit intent of Congress in the 9/11 Act. Congress, 

through 9/11 Section 1408, Section 1512, 1517, 1531, and so on, explicitly directed that regulations be put forward for rail transit, 

highway, and so on. Under 1557(d), which covers pipelines, they 

specifically ask that we complete the review and then also determine if—and the word ‘‘if’’ is in there clearly—necessary to promulgate regulations in a pipeline. And that is what we are doing, is 

to comply with the desire and wishes of Congress. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Thank you very much. 

I yield back, although I have gone over my time. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. Johnson, I realize that PHMSA has touched on all of the 

statutory mandates in the PIPES Act in some way over the last 18 

months, but I am concerned about the slow progress in implementing some of the mandates. I start with the low stress hazardous liquid pipeline rulemaking. Why did PHMSA decide to pursue a two part phase approach to meet the mandate? If it is further 

information you need to complete the rulemaking, what specific information are you looking for? When will a rule be issued on phase 

two? Will we see a final rule on the issue in 2008? I am really concerned about six months left in this Administration, and then we 

get a new Administration and then there is a time lapse. Can you 

address that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Madam Chairman, the information that we are 

gathering—actually, the Congress permitted the rule to be divided 

in two phases, and we felt it was necessary to get the phase one 

out to protect the unusually sensitive areas, water and things of 

that nature. But we are gathering data that we do need to have. 

The data really is coming in four ways: it is coming in comments 

on dockets, it is coming from field visits that we are making, State 

surveys through the National Association of State Pipeline Safety 

Representatives—NAPSR it is called—and then the annual reports 

that companies file. We are constantly getting that material in and 

we should have it in relatively shortly. We anticipate having a rule 

ready by the fall, a proposal. 

Ms. BROWN. I have a follow-up question. The Secretary of Transportation and Energy is required in the PIPES Act to conduct periodical studies to find out whether or not any of the shortage of 

price distributions may be caused by pipeline failure. And you 

know we are in a crisis mode as far as the price of oil is concerned. 

Do you know whether or not it has anything to do with failure of 

the pipelines? 

Ms. GERARD. We have been working on that study and are nearly 

finishing it, and from the work we have done it seems that the regulatory structure we have and the practices of the operators in fact 

return the pipelines to service very quickly or there is access to 

17 

supply from trucks. So we have not actually seen, even with the 

hurricanes of 2005 and later and the events in Alaska, the market 

actually didn’t experience a shortage for more than a few days. So 

we do believe that the structure we have in place is good enough 

to produce the reliability that we need. 

We would be happy to come up and brief you on our findings in 

more detail. 

Ms. BROWN. As I said earlier, I will do a visit, a site visit, in the 

very near future. 

Mr. Larsen, I understand you have another question. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Administrator Johnson, with regards to the reassessment intervals, a few questions. Can you first describe the current waiver 

process that you use for the reassessment interval? 

Ms. GERARD. We went through an extensive public comment period and review with our advisory committee, had a public meeting 

this winter on that subject, and there is a very extensive set of 

standards in place that we would use to grant a waiver. We think 

that we have the authority, under our general waiver authority 

that pre-existed the PIPES Act, to be able to make a determination 

if there was a solid engineering basis for accepting a different interval in the seven years. So there is quite an extensive record on 

that. 

Mr. LARSEN. Have you issued any waivers under that? 

Ms. GERARD. No, not yet. 

Mr. LARSEN. The operators have pointed out for segments baseline inspected in 2003 and 2005 the reassessments have to be done 

in 2010 and 2012, even though some of the baselines are still being 

conducted. This is one of the issues that we discussed in 2006 in 

putting the PIPES Act together, this potential overlap of baseline 

inspections and reassessments for the same operator; perhaps in a 

different area, but for the same operator. That is certainly going 

to put some pressure on PHMSA and perhaps your State partners 

in terms of inspection and equipment. Are you concerned about 

that overlap period? Are you currently preparing for that overlap 

period by having an increased number of inspectors and equipment 

ready? 

Ms. GERARD. The burden for conducting the inspections is really 

on the operators, and we have the greater concern about getting 

the assessment in all communities. It would be our preference that 

all communities would be inspected first, before we were returning 

with reassessment. As you know, the PIPES Act did provide for 

significant increase in resources, both for PHMSA and States, and 

I believe that we are in a much better positions, and our States, 

moving forward to be able to have an increase in inspectors to oversee the operators’ plans. 

Mr. LARSEN. Are you then receiving the dollars in the budget to 

meet that increased authorization? 

Ms. GERARD. We are moving along smartly to increase the number of inspectors and the Senate has—I guess it was the Senate?— 

we have seen one of the marks for 2009 and we are hopeful that 

we are going to get the resources we have asked for. 

Mr. LARSEN. Madam Chair, not to presume the reauthorization 

in a couple years, but I am just making a note about things beginVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:30 Mar 17, 2009 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\43308 JASON
18 

ning to take shape in looking at testimony today and Energy and 

Commerce from a few months ago we were looking at public safety 

information grant, probably looking at the reassessment again, low 

stress pipelines, this issue of pipeline security and safety. Those 

four issues probably at least, not to mention the other things folks 

are going to bring up, certainly probably bear some further attention from us as we move forward into next year and gearing up for 

a 2010 reauthorization. 

Ms. GERARD. I should have pointed out that the Secretary did 

send a letter, at the request of the House Energy Committee, on 

the subject of the approach to dealing with the reassessment interval through a regulatory approach, and we would be happy to make 

that letter available to you dealing with our strategy for that. 

Mr. LARSEN. Could you provide it to the Subcommittee? 

Ms. GERARD. Absolutely. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back the remainder of my time. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

Mr. Shuster? 

Mr. SHUSTER. Yes, just one final question to Mr. Johnson. The 

rulemaking and reports that were due December of 2007, when do 

you feel as though that will be completed? I know you came on 

board just six months ago, but do you have a time line of when we 

can expect to see what is required completed, and to us? 

Mr. JOHNSON. The materials that we have—most of the mandates are addressed. They are either at OMB, they are in NPRMs 

or they are on their way. It is my goal to push as hard as we can 

to get those things accomplished in the time that we have left, 

which is rapidly diminishing, and I can assure you that I and the 

PHMSA staff are doing all we can to get this done, and that is our 

commitment, to get it done. A lot of things we don’t control affect 

that, and I hope that our goals are met. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Is the hangup at OMB? Because I know there is 

a public comment period. What is that, 60 days or 90 days? 

Mr. JOHNSON. It varies. They are major rules, so they do need 

to have the time that people can take a look at it and make comment to, and that process is the unknown. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Right. And is it OMB that is a sticking point? 

Mr. JOHNSON. I don’t know that I would call it a sticking point. 

They do what they do with great deliberation. 

Mr. SHUSTER. Sometimes too much deliberation. I don’t know if 

it is the accountants or the lawyers that hold it up there. I would 

put my money it is the lawyers that hold it up. 

Well, thank you very much. Appreciate your being here today. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. I have a couple of security questions. There were a 

number of statutory mandates contained in the 9/11 bill related to 

hazardous materials and pipeline security. Most of those were to be 

implemented by May 2008. What is the status of those mandates? 

And that is for all three. 

Mr. SAMMON. Let me take a first shot at it, Congresswoman. 

First, 1557(a) was to establish a program for reviewing pipeline operator adoption of the 2002 guideline recommendations. That has 

been completed. 

19 

Section 1557(b), develop and implement a plan for reviewing the 

pipeline security plans and inspection of critical facilities of the 100 

most critical pipeline operators. The plans were to be in place by 

August 3rd and, as the Inspector General has said, that is underway. The plans are in place and we are hiring contractors to make 

sure we can cover all the facilities with inspectors who are qualified and complete that. 

Section 1557(d), develop and transmit to operators security recommendations for national gas and hazardous liquid pipeline facilities. We are working on that. It is basically looking at today’s 

guidelines and finalizing those for 2008 for an OMB review. 

Section 1557(d) further, to promulgate any necessary regulations—if the Secretary determines if regulations are necessary and 

to promulgate those, but also to incorporate the 2002 security 

guidelines within those regulations and any other information that 

is found from the 1557 part (b) inspection of the 100 most critical 

facilities. 

1558 is to develop a pipeline security incident recovery protocols 

plan. We are working closely with PHMSA. PHMSA’s experience, 

as the Inspector General mentioned, particularly in terms of safety 

and accident and recovery, is invaluable, and we want to work with 

them and make sure we draw upon their expertise. 

1558(d), submit a report containing the pipeline security and recovery plan and estimate of the private and public sector cost to 

implement any recommendations. Again, we are working closely 

with PHMSA on that plan. We want to make sure that we draw 

upon their expertise and use their recovery capabilities and experience to do that properly. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Madam Chairwoman, if I may. I can be brief. You 

will know from our report released last month and our testimony 

that we focused on pipeline security, in accordance with your mandate under the PIPES Act. In doing so, we looked at the 9/11 Commission Act from 2007 and the requirement for the inspection and 

assessment of the security plans for the 100 most critical operators 

and their facilities. 

Mr. Sammon has advised the Committee that they are on track, 

apparently, for the August 2008 deadline. Our testimony, however, 

made the point that a simple paper review of security plans will 

not be enough. We have strongly recommended that vulnerability 

testing take place. From our experience in the aviation security environment, actual physical tests of facilities and, in this case, cyber 

attack testing would be most beneficial. Until that happens, what 

we have are some pretty good paperweights in terms of what a security plan and a written review might look like. To be truly effective for the Country and for the agencies involved, some vulnerability testing and detailed reviews of those results would be required. 

Ms. BROWN. Excuse me. That is right, that is what is in your report, and you saying that they needed to do some covert testing. 

I want to know whether or not any of that is taking place or where 

are we as far as this mandate is concerned. 

Mr. SAMMON. Well, I will say what our plan is is to follow the 

language of the 9/11 Act, which requires not only reviewing security plans, but inspecting the critical facilities. So what we are 

20 

doing is following specifically the language of the 9/11 Act, and that 

is our intent. In terms of covert testing, we are not doing any covert testing at the present time, nor in terms of the inspections, I 

don’t believe we are contemplating covert testing at this point in 

time. 

Ms. BROWN. So the coordination is just paper review? 

Mr. SAMMON. No, it is an onsite inspection of critical facilities, 

as required by the Act. 

Ms. BROWN. I guess the follow-up question would be what is 

needed for additional pipeline security regulation. What should we 

be doing, then, in Congress? 

Mr. SAMMON. Well, I think first what we ought to do—I think 

Congress has, in terms of overall security through the 9/11 Act, addressed broadly all the modes of transportation and very specifically under Section 1557 been very explicit in terms of what Congress would like to see done, and I think the first thing we ought 

to do is comply and fulfill the requirements of Section 1557 of the 

9/11 Act. 

Ms. BROWN. Well, you know, this is our first hearing, but some 

of the issues that were addressed, we are just getting that information in the last week, and I think one of the Members’ questions 

was very important, as to when an accident occurs, who is responsible for contacting the person that is responsible, the local mayor 

of the community. I don’t know that we got an answer. 

Ms. GERARD. As it relates to a pipeline accident, we have very 

clear regulations on the requirement for communicating with the 

community both through the emergency response officials and I 

think during an accident. Where we left the question open was in 

the case of a hazmat railroad event. We are going to have to check 

on that and get back to you. 

Ms. BROWN. For example, the accident that took place in Tampa. 

Part of that could have been prevented if we had additional education, as far as the community is concerned. Where are we as far 

as that education component of the program? 

Ms. GERARD. Actually, I am so glad that you mentioned that. We 

are preparing with Department of Homeland Security a full program later this summer. We hope you have the opportunity to attend. Representatives from industry will be participating and we 

have a full program planned for emergency response officials to upgrade their preparedness for exactly that kind of event. So we 

couldn’t agree with you more. 

Ms. BROWN. Another follow-up question. What we need to further 

focus our efforts to enhance the pipeline and security act. What 

would be the recommendation, starting with Mr. Johnson? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, we certainly have a very good working relationship with TSA at this point, and we are participating with 

them on inspections and we have quarterly reviews. I think that 

should TSA decide that they want to do some of these vulnerability 

tests, we would certainly be pleased to provide our advice. 

Mr. SCOVEL. Madam Chairman, if I may return to your point 

about vulnerability testing. If the attention of Congress is needed 

to ensure that vulnerability testing will take place, my office 

strongly recommends that Congress take that action. 

21 

Mr. SAMMON. I didn’t mean to imply that we are avoiding the 

cyber testing. We have contracted with Applied Physics Lab of 

Johns Hopkins to do that analysis of cyber security vulnerability 

of pipeline systems overall. So in terms of going out and testing 

each of the 100 facilities, no, but what we are doing is contracting 

one of the premier labs to determine what is the status and the 

vulnerability of the pipeline control systems to cyber security. That 

contract is just underway right now. 

Ms. BROWN. I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony 

and the Members for their questions. Again, if the Members of the 

Subcommittee have additional questions for the witnesses, we will 

ask that you respond to them in writing. I know that we have some 

additional questions that we are going to give you. The hearing 

record will be held open for 14 days for Members wishing to make 

additional statements or to ask further questions. 

Unless there is further business, the Subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

22 


43308.013
23 


43308.014
24 


43308.015
25 


43308.016
26 


43308.017
27 


43308.018
28 


43308.019
29 


43308.020
30 


43308.021
31 


43308.022
32 


43308.023
33 


43308.024
34 


43308.025
35 


43308.026
36 


43308.027
37 


43308.028
38 


43308.029
39 


43308.030
40 


43308.031
41 


43308.032
42 


43308.033
43 


43308.034
44 


43308.035
45 


43308.036
46 


43308.037
47 


43308.038
48 


43308.039
49 


43308.040
50 


43308.041
51 


43308.042
52 


43308.043
53 


43308.044
54 


43308.045
55 


43308.046
56 


43308.047
57 


43308.048
58 


43308.049
59 


43308.050
60 


43308.051
61 


43308.052
62 


43308.053
63 


43308.054
64 


43308.055
65 


43308.056
66 


43308.057
67 


43308.058
68 


43308.059
69 


43308.060
70 


43308.061
71 


43308.062
72 


43308.063
73 


43308.064
74 


43308.065
75 


43308.066
76 


43308.067
77 


43308.068
78 


43308.069
79 


43308.070
80 


43308.071
81 

Æ 


43308.072