99–006

107TH CONGRESS REPT. 107–475 " HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ! 2d Session Part 1

ENERGY PIPELINE RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND 

DEMONSTRATION ACT

MAY 16, 2002.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. BOEHLERT, from the Committee on Science, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany H.R. 3929] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 

3929) to provide for the establishment of a cooperative Federal research, development, and demonstration program to ensure the integrity of pipeline facilities, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and 

recommend that the bill as amended do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

I. Amendment ................................................................................................. 1

II. Purpose of the Bill ...................................................................................... 4

III. Background and Need for the Legislation ................................................ 4

IV. Summary of Hearing .................................................................................. 5

V. Committee Actions ...................................................................................... 6

VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill .................................................. 7

VII. Section-By-Section Analysis (By Title and Section) ................................. 7

VIII. Committee Views ........................................................................................ 8

IX. Cost Estimate .............................................................................................. 11

X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate ............................................. 11

XI. Compliance with Public Law 104–4 (Unfunded Mandates) .................... 12

XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations ........................... 12

XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives ...................... 12

XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement .......................................................... 12

XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement ................................................... 12

XVI. Congressional Accountability Act .............................................................. 13

XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law ........................ 13

XVIII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported ....................... 13

XIX. Committee Recommendations .................................................................... 13

XX. Proceedings of Full Committee Markup .................................................... 13 

2

I. AMENDMENT

The amendment is as follows: 

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Energy Pipeline Research, Development, and Demonstration Act’’. 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

The Congress finds that—

(1) energy pipelines are a key component of the energy infrastructure of the 

United States; 

(2) pipelines can become more susceptible to failure with age; 

(3) energy pipelines with unprotected rights-of-way and associated aboveground facilities are vulnerable to terrorist attacks and other disruptions and 

raise safety concerns; 

(4) interruptions in service on major pipelines, whether a result of pipeline 

failure or purposeful action, can have enormous consequences for the economy 

and security of the United States; 

(5) new energy sources such as hydrogen will require a new generation of 

pipelines; and 

(6) a more coordinated research, development, demonstration, and standardization program is needed to ensure the use of existing technologies and the development of new technologies to increase the safety and security of these critical facilities. 

SEC. 3. PIPELINE INTEGRITY RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION. 

(a) ESTABLISHMENT OF COOPERATIVE PROGRAM.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—The heads of the participating agencies shall develop and 

implement a program of research, development, demonstration, and standardization to ensure the integrity of energy pipelines and next-generation pipelines. 

(2) ELEMENTS.—The program shall include research, development, demonstration, and standardization activities related to—

(A) materials inspection; 

(B) stress and fracture analysis, detection of cracks, corrosion, abrasion, 

and other abnormalities inside pipelines that lead to pipeline failure, and 

development of new equipment or technologies that are inserted into pipelines to detect anomalies; 

(C) internal inspection and leak detection technologies, including detection of leaks at very low volumes; 

(D) methods of analyzing content of pipeline throughput; 

(E) pipeline security, including improving the real-time surveillance of 

pipeline rights-of-way, developing tools for evaluating and enhancing pipeline security and infrastructure, reducing natural, technological, and terrorist threats, and protecting first response units and persons near an incident; 

(F) risk assessment methodology, including vulnerability assessment and 

reduction of third-party damage; 

(G) communication, control, and information systems surety; 

(H) fire safety of pipelines; 

(I) improved excavation, construction, and repair technologies; and 

(J) other elements the heads of the participating agencies consider appropriate. 

(3) ACTIVITIES AND CAPABILITIES REPORT.—Not later than 6 months after the 

date of the enactment of this Act, the participating agencies shall transmit to 

the Congress a report on the existing activities and capabilities of the participating agencies, including the national laboratories. The report shall include the 

results of a survey by the participating agencies of any activities of other Federal agencies that are relevant to or could supplement existing research, development, demonstration, and standardization activities under the program created under this section. 

(b) PROGRAM PLAN.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this 

Act, the participating agencies shall prepare and transmit to Congress a 5-year 

program plan to guide activities under this section. Such program plan shall be 

submitted to the Pipeline Integrity Technical Advisory Committee established 

under subsection (c) for review, and the report to Congress shall include the 

comments of the Advisory Committee. The 5-year program plan shall take into 

3

account related activities of Federal agencies that are not participating agencies. 

(2) CONSULTATION.—In preparing the program plan, the participating agencies shall consult with appropriate representatives of State and local government and the private sector, including companies owning energy pipelines and 

developers of next-generation pipelines, to help establish program priorities. 

(3) ADVICE FROM OTHER ENTITIES.—In preparing the program plan, the participating agencies shall also seek the advice of other Federal agencies, utilities, 

manufacturers, institutions of higher learning, pipeline research institutions, 

national laboratories, environmental organizations, pipeline safety advocates, 

professional and technical societies, and any other appropriate entities. 

(c) PIPELINE INTEGRITY TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.—

(1) ESTABLISHMENT.—The participating agencies shall establish and manage 

a Pipeline Integrity Technical Advisory Committee (in this subsection referred 

to as the ‘‘Advisory Committee’’). The Advisory Committee shall be established 

not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

(2) DUTIES.—The Advisory Committee shall—

(A) advise the participating agencies on the development and implementation of the program plan prepared under subsection (b); and 

(B) have a continuing role in evaluating the progress and results of research, development, demonstration, and standardization activities carried 

out under this section. 

(3) MEMBERSHIP.—

(A) APPOINTMENT.—The Advisory Committee shall be composed of—

(i) 3 members appointed by the Secretary of Energy; 

(ii) 3 members appointed by the Secretary of Transportation; and 

(iii) 3 members appointed by the Director of the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology. 

In making appointments, the participating agencies shall seek recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences. 

(B) QUALIFICATIONS.—Members appointed to the Advisory Committee 

shall have experience or be technically qualified, by training or knowledge, 

in the operations of the pipeline industry, and have experience in the research and development of pipeline or related technologies. 

(C) COMPENSATION.—The members of the Advisory Committee shall serve 

without compensation, but shall receive travel expenses, including per diem 

in lieu of subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 of title 5, 

United States Code. 

(4) MEETINGS.—The Advisory Committee shall meet at least 4 times each 

year. 

(5) TERMINATION.—The Advisory Committee shall terminate 5 years after its 

establishment. 

(d) REPORTS TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment 

of this Act, and annually thereafter, the participating agencies shall each transmit 

to the Congress a report on the status and results to date of the implementation 

of their portion of the program plan prepared under subsection (b). 

SEC. 4. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING. 

Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the participating agencies shall enter into a memorandum of understanding detailing their respective responsibilities under this Act, consistent with the activities and capabilities identified under section 3(a)(3). Each of the participating agencies shall have 

the primary responsibility for ensuring that the elements of the program plan within its jurisdiction are implemented in accordance with this Act. The Department of 

Transportation’s responsibilities shall reflect its expertise in pipeline inspection and 

information systems surety. The Department of Energy’s responsibilities shall reflect its expertise in low-volume leak detection and surveillance technologies. The 

National Institute of Standards and Technology’s responsibilities shall reflect its expertise in standards and materials research. 

SEC. 5. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. 

There are authorized to be appropriated—

(1) to the Secretary of Energy $10,000,000; 

(2) to the Secretary of Transportation $5,000,000; and 

(3) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology $5,000,000, 

for each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2007 for carrying out this Act. 

SEC. 6. DEFINITIONS. 

For purposes of this Act—

4

(1) the term ‘‘energy pipeline’’ means a pipeline system used in the transmission or local distribution of natural gas (including liquefied natural gas), 

crude oil, or refined petroleum products; 

(2) the term ‘‘next-generation pipeline’’ means a transmission or local distribution pipeline system designed to transmit energy or energy-related products, in 

liquid or gaseous form, other than energy pipelines; 

(3) the term ‘‘participating agencies’’ means the Department of Energy, the 

Department of Transportation, and the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology; and 

(4) the term ‘‘pipeline’’ means an energy pipeline or a next-generation pipeline.

II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

This bill authorizes cooperative Federal research, development, 

and demonstration (RD&D) programs to be conducted by the Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Transportation (DOT) 

and in the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) 

to ensure the integrity of energy pipelines. This program will develop methods and technologies to help prevent pipeline failures 

from all causes, including, but not limited to accidental pipeline 

breaches and intentional attacks. 

III. BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

There are approximately 2.1 million miles of pipelines in the U.S. 

transporting natural gas, crude oil, petroleum and other products. 

The DOT regulates these pipelines in partnership with state regulators. States have regulatory responsibility for intrastate pipelines, while the Federal Government oversees the interstate pipeline system. Research and Development (R&D is critical to support 

the government’s regulatory mission and to assist industry’s efforts 

to optimize safety and improve performance and reliability of the 

nation’s pipelines. Currently, research on the safety and security of 

the nation’s gas and product pipelines is conducted by DOE, which 

operates on general revenue funding, and DOT, through the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), which collects industry user fees for R&D. RSPA’s research efforts are an essential part of DOT’s regulatory mission, but some question whether RSPA’s research effort may be too focused on pipeline regulatory 

goals. The programs authorized under this Act at DOE, DOT and 

the new program to be established at NIST are designed to supplement the fee-based research at RSPA and to ensure that any existing or future research gaps are filled. 

Pipeline integrity and safety are of critical importance to the 

public, both to reduce injuries and fatalities from pipeline failures 

and because of the importance of the products carried—natural 

gas, liquid products and, increasingly, hydrogen and other energy 

sources for the future. Pipeline accidents over the last several years 

have caused injuries and deaths around the country. Since September 11th, the fear of accidents has been exacerbated by the fear 

of terrorism. In many places pipelines carrying volatile materials 

are at or near the surface and pass through densely populated 

areas. These pipelines run along rights-of-way that are largely unprotected and not under constant surveillance. 

Pipeline breaches, whether accidents or intentional, pose a danger to the public and to the environment. Incidents over the past 

number of years have caused fatalities, including a large accident 

at Carlsbad, New Mexico in August 2000 that killed 10 people; an 

5

explosion in Bellingham, Washington, in June 1999 that killed 

three; and an accident at South Riding, Virginia in the summer of 

1998 that killed one. 

The loss of pipeline capacity in constrained markets can also create energy shortages that have far-reaching economic consequences. Pipeline accidents can cause price spikes or a longerterm price rise. However, R&D can help reduce incidents, and ensure rapid recovery to minimize risks. 

Pipeline Safety reauthorization has been taken up several times 

in the past several years. The Senate passed comprehensive pipeline safety legislation by voice vote in September of 2000 but the 

House did not take up the bill. On February 13, 2001, the Senate 

again passed comprehensive legislation, S. 235, this time by a vote 

of 98 to 0. Several comprehensive pipeline safety bills have been introduced in the House, including H.R. 144 (by Mr. Dingell and Mr. 

Oberstar), H.R. 459 (by Mr. Larson), H.R. 2749 (by Ms. Dunn) and 

H.R. 3609 (by Mr. Tauzin and Mr. Young). These bills cover a wide 

range of pipeline safety issues, including the qualification and 

training of pipeline safety personnel, pipeline integrity inspection, 

security at pipeline facilities, enforcement of pipeline safety requirements, public access to information about pipelines, state 

oversight, coordinated environmental review of pipeline projects, 

the use of cost-benefit analysis in regulatory decision-making, and 

the conduct of Federal pipeline safety research and development. 

On March 12, 2002, Mr. Hall of Texas introduced H.R. 3929, the 

Energy Pipeline Research, Development, and Demonstration Act, 

along with Mr. Smith of Texas. The Committee on Science marked 

up H.R. 3929 on March 20th. The legislation will address some of 

the research needs posed by the Nation’s aging and vulnerable 

pipeline infrastructure and the need for a new generation of pipelines to transport products in the future. The bill sets out a RD&D 

mission for the DOE, DOT and NIST. Both DOE and DOT have existing pipeline safety research programs, but the Administration 

proposes to transfer DOE’s research program functions to DOT in 

FY 2003. The DOE program would be preserved under provisions 

contained in H.R. 3929. In addition, the bill authorizes a research 

program to be undertaken by NIST to develop pipeline standards. 

NIST’s research capabilities in materials research related to pipeline safety date back as far as World War II when NIST assisted 

the Navy in research on metal fatigue. Over the years, NIST has 

worked with both the American Gas Association and the American 

Petroleum Institute by making precise measurements of the flow 

rates of pipeline contents. In addition, NIST has some valuable experience in connection with the National Earthquake Hazards Research Program that will allow it to lend a variety of relevant expertise to efforts to improve pipeline safety. 

IV. SUMMARY OF HEARING

On March 13, 2002, the Subcommittee on Energy of the House 

Committee on Science held a hearing titled H.R. 3929: Energy 

Pipeline Research, Development, and Demonstration Act. This 

hearing examined the Committee’s legislation, H.R. 3929 designed 

to advance the science needed to protect the Nation’s critical pipeline infrastructure from attack or failure. The Committee’s legislation will increase R&D efforts to improve surveillance, security, 

6

fault detection (including difficult-to-detect low-level leaks), and to 

measure the robustness of pipeline materials. It is hoped that such 

research can reduce repair and recovery times after a pipeline failure. Witnesses included pipeline industry stakeholders who testified on provisions included in H.R. 3939 and on how a government/

industry pipeline safety research partnership will best improve 

pipeline safety. 

Mr. Terry Boss, Vice President of Environment, Safety and Operations for the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America testified on the importance of pipeline research and the different funding mechanisms employed to finance these efforts. He indicated 

that new funding mechanisms need to be put in place to make up 

for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) R&D surcharge which expires in 2004. The FERC surcharge-funded research program has collected as much as $212 million a year. He 

also raised some questions about NIST’s role in pipeline safety 

R&D and urged the Committee to give a higher priority to restoring DOE’s funding. 

Mr. Tim Felt, the President of the Explorer Pipeline Corporation 

appeared on behalf of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines. He testified 

that the DOT’s Office of Pipeline Safety has the longest experience 

in pipeline safety R&D and perhaps the best understanding of the 

needs of the regulated community. He felt that DOE had an important R&D role, since pipeline safety is such an important public 

and environmental priority, and DOE has access to general revenue funds. He discussed technologies that DOE has developed 

that may be useful for pipeline operators. Finally, he advised the 

committee to name a lead agency to minimize disagreement among 

the agencies about the roles and functions of each in the overall 

R&D program authorized by H.R. 3929. 

Dr. Nirmal Chatterjee, Vice President of Environmental, Health 

and Safety and Corporate Engineering for Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. testified that hydrogen pipelines operate in a different 

manner from natural gas and products pipelines and, as such, will 

require substantially different R&D efforts. These differences include enhanced leak flow detection, automated shut off valves and 

greater variability in pipeline diameter. He predicted that most hydrogen production would be local and said that he did not foresee 

the need for an extensive hydrogen pipeline system in the next 10– 20 years. 

Mr. Stan Wise, a Commissioner with the Georgia Public Service 

Commission, appeared on behalf of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). His testimony focused on 

a NARUC R&D funding resolution that is not a part of H.R. 3929. 

This mandatory funding scheme would collect approximately $65 

million in funding for pipeline and storage R&D programs and has 

the support of American Gas Association (which represents mostly 

local distribution companies). 

V. COMMITTEE ACTIONS

On March 12, 2002, Ranking Minority Member Ralph Hall and 

Mr. Lamar Smith of the Committee on Science introduced H.R. 

3939, the Energy Pipeline Research, Development, and Demonstration Act, a bill to direct the heads of the DOE, DOT, and NIST to 

develop and implement a cooperative Federal research, developVerDate May 16 2002 05:32 May 19, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR475P1.XXX pfrm20 PsN: HR475P1
7

ment, demonstration, and standardization program to ensure the 

integrity of pipeline facilities. As summarized above, the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Science heard testimony 

relevant to the programs authorized in H.R. 3929 at a hearing on 

March 13, 2002. The Committee on Science met to consider H.R. 

3929 on March 20, 2002, and entertained an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Hall, Ranking Minority Member 

of the Committee on Science, on behalf of himself and Mr. Smith 

of Texas. The amendment, which was adopted by voice vote: (1) incorporates some recommendations of witnesses at the March 13th 

hearing, and written comments and consultations with other interested parties; (2) clarifies that the RD&D program includes advances related to both traditional energy pipelines as well as ‘‘next 

generation’’ pipelines. (Section 6 defines ‘‘next-generation pipelines’’

to include any pipeline carrying energy or energy-related products 

other than natural gas, crude oil or refined petroleum products); 

and, (3) makes several changes to the findings in Section 2 to clarify the scope of the bill and its provisions. The motion to adopt the 

bill, as amended, was agreed to by a voice vote. The motion to report the bill, as amended, was agreed to by a voice vote. 

VI. SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

To provide for the establishment of a cooperative Federal RD&D 

program to ensure the integrity and safety of pipelines and related 

facilities through a coordinated Federal program of pipeline safety 

RD&D, and standardization program conducted by the DOE, DOT 

and NIST (identified as ‘‘the participating agencies’’). The bill: 

• Requires that the participating agencies provide to Congress 

an analysis of their RD&D and standardization capabilities and activities within six months of enactment of this legislation. 

• Requires that the participating agencies submit to Congress 

within one year of enactment, a plan for RD&D and standardization efforts to be undertaken under this legislation. 

• Establishes a Pipeline Integrity Technical Advisory Committee 

(PITAC). 

• Directs PITAC to review the plan and provide ongoing assessments of the RD&D and standardization efforts authorized under 

the Act. 

• Calls upon the participating agencies to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) within 120 days of enactment to 

outline research capabilities and responsibilities for each of the 

three agencies. 

• Authorizes to be appropriated each fiscal year (2002–2006): 

$10,000,000 to DOE; $5,000,000 to DOT; and $5,000,000 to NIST. 

These funds are in addition to any other fee-based funding used for 

pipeline research programs at DOT. 

VII. SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS (BY TITLE AND SECTION)

Section 1. Short title 

Subsection 1(a) cites the Act as the Energy Pipeline Research, 

Development, and Demonstration Act, and subsection 1(b) contains 

the bill’s table of contents.

8

Section 2. Findings 

Section 2 contains the Committee’s findings on the need for this 

legislation. 

Section 3. Pipeline integrity research, development, and demonstration 

Requires DOE, DOT, and NIST to develop and implement an 

RD&D program focused on energy pipeline safety. Requires participating agencies to submit a report of activities and capabilities to 

Congress no later than six months after enactment and a five-year 

program plan to the PITAC no later than one year after enactment. 

The Act provides for coordination among participating agencies, 

state and local governments, and the pipeline industry with advice 

from a number of outside entities in preparing the plan. Establishes the PITAC to advise and evaluate the plan. The PITAC shall 

be composed of nine members, three each appointed by DOE, DOT 

and NIST under recommendations from the National Academy of 

Sciences. PITAC members shall be qualified technically and serve 

without compensation other than travel expenses. The PITAC will 

meet four times each year and will be terminated after five years. 

The participating agencies will submit annual reports on the status 

of their portion of the program. 

Section 4. Memorandum of understanding 

Requires DOE, DOT and NIST to enter into a MOU detailing 

their roles in this program. DOT’s responsibilities shall include 

pipeline inspection and information systems surety. DOE’s responsibilities shall include low-volume leak detection and surveillance 

technologies. NIST’s responsibilities shall include standards and 

materials research. 

Section 5. Authorization of appropriations 

Authorizes to be appropriated each fiscal year (2002–2006): 

$10,000,000 to DOE, $5,000,000 to DOT and $5,000,000 to NIST. 

These funds are in addition to any other fee-based funding used for 

pipeline research programs at DOT. 

Section 6. Definitions 

Defines ‘‘participating agencies’’ as the DOE, DOT and NIST. 

VIII. COMMITTEE VIEWS

Section 2. Findings 

Fire safety of pipelines, always a difficult problem, becomes more 

difficult in pipelines that move methanol, hydrogen, and other 

higher energy content fuels. Hydrogen is a particularly hazardous 

fuel; it is extremely reactive and leads to extremely high temperature fires. Both methanol and hydrogen flames are not detectable 

to the human eye which complicates both detection and fire fighting efforts, yet virtually no research has been done on developing 

optimal strategies for leak and fire detection. NIST’s fire research 

division, which has decades of experience in developing, verifying, 

and utilizing fire measurements and methods of prediction is 

uniquely situated to help fill these research gaps. NIST has strong 

capabilities related to laboratory measurement of fire, integrating 

9

research results into models, and conducting large-scale fire experiments to demonstrate the use and value of the research projects. 

Section 3. Pipeline integrity research, development, and demonstration 

Section 3(a)(2)(B) contains language related to pipeline degradation including cracks, corrosion, abrasion and other abnormalities 

as well as stress and fractures, which can cause a range of problems, including catastrophic failure. Detection and analysis of problems before they become severe is essential to the safe, efficient 

and economic operation of pipelines. This section calls for an integrated research, development, demonstration and standardization 

program to improve our understanding of pipeline failure modes 

and stresses through improved technologies and analytical techniques. This RD&D should include in-line inspection devices that 

can more reliably detect features such as hard spots, stress corrosion cracking, and other actual or potential points-of-failure and 

should include ‘‘next-generation’’ pipelines which are transmission 

pipelines other than oil and gas pipelines carrying new forms of energy such as hydrogen. These programs should take into account 

the unique characteristics of different pipelines and seek appropriate solutions for the different types of products, operating environments, physical layout, pipeline pressures and maintenance 

duty cycles. 

Section 3(a)(2)(C) calls for RD&D on low-level pipeline leaks, 

which are difficult to detect by conventional means and are often 

a precursor to serious threats to health and environmental safety. 

Detection of these small leaks requires development of new, lowcost, high-confidence detection technologies and techniques. Research is needed to develop acoustic and fiber optic sensors, among 

others, to measure these parameters on-line and in real time. 

These detection methods must take into account the unique characteristics of different pipelines and seek appropriate solutions for 

the different types of products, operating environments, physical 

layout, pipeline pressure and maintenance duty cycles. 

The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has extensive expertise in analytical technologies that could be employed for monitoring the integrity of the flowing material, leaks, aging, and other 

problems associated with pipelines. For example, external leak detection and analysis of the material in the pipeline could be accomplished with small, automated mass spectrometers, similar to those 

designed for the Department of Defense for chemical/biological 

threat agents. Microfabricated mass spectrometers and ion-mobility 

spectrometers being developed at ORNL are able to detect level 

concentrations of gas-phase species down to parts-per-billion levels 

and could be produced at low cost. Distributed arrays of such sensors would allow continuous remote monitoring of pipeline integrity.

ORNL has expertise and unique facilities in materials research, 

inspection, stress and fracture analysis, and the detection of cracks. 

In one project focused on pipeline safety, an experimentally based 

model was developed that gives insight into the mechanisms involved when pipelines are hydrostatically proof tested in the field. 

Use of this model could help avoid the damage that sometimes results from such field testing. The Lawrence Berkeley National LabVerDate May 16 2002 05:32 May 19, 2002 Jkt 099006 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR475P1.XXX pfrm20 PsN: HR475P1
10

oratory (LBNL) is developing two technologies to ensure the integrity of pipelines in refineries: optical fiber based acoustic monitoring for analysis of cracking and corrosion; and optical-fiberbased spectroscopy for leak detection. 

Section 3(a)(2)(E) calls for development of improved surveillance 

of pipeline rights-of-way. This improved surveillance will be used 

to detect threats ranging from accidental construction damage to 

deliberate attack. These threats also consist of cyber threats to 

pipeline control and monitoring, and supervisory control and data 

acquisition (SCADA) systems. 

RD&D under Section 3(a)(2)(F) should include LBNL’s Exposure 

and Risk Analysis Group’s world-recognized capabilities in risk assessment methodology with particular strengths in emissions-todose assessment, biokinetics, and methods for addressing uncertainty and variability. 

The purpose of the Activities and Capabilities Report required 

under section 3(a)(3) is to gather information and catalog expertise 

throughout the government and its laboratories related or useful to 

the pipeline hazard reduction RD&D and standardization activities 

planned under this Act, thereby creating a baseline on which to 

structure the program plan required under 3(b). It is our hope that 

within six months, the participating agencies will be able to develop a clear picture of what is known and what is not known related to both traditional and next generation pipelines and that 

this knowledge will allow the plan to be developed in a way that 

minimizes unnecessary overlap among agencies, alerts all relevant 

agencies that this work will be undertaken, and ensures that all 

relevant agencies integrate their research planning so that this Act 

leads to the best possible use of the program’s limited resources. 

The Committee intends that the appointees to PITAC under Section 3(c) have training and experience that is relevant and applicable to pipeline safety and security operations, not necessarily 

‘‘hands-on’’ experience in the operation of pipelines. 

Section 4. Memorandum of understanding 

Development of the MOU under Section 4 should require the participating agencies to coordinate in advance of carrying out any 

other activities under the Act to learn what other agencies bring 

to the program and to divide up responsibilities in a manner that 

minimizes duplication and that makes the best use of existing expertise. This section lists specific areas of expertise for the DOT, 

the DOE, and NIST that are clearly relevant to the work to be accomplished under the Act and which should be included in the 

MOU. However, since each of the agencies has far-ranging abilities, 

it is assumed that the MOU will be far more exhaustive than the 

statutory language and will list in each case more of the expertise 

that each agency brings to this project. The Committee on Science 

of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation of the Senate expect to be kept informed of the progress towards development of the MOU and to be 

sent final versions of the MOU as soon as it becomes available. 

Section 6. Definitions 

The term ‘‘next-generation pipeline’’ is meant to include all foreseeable types of pipelines needed to carry alternative liquid and 

11

gaseous fuels such as hydrogen and methanol, but is not meant to 

include incremental improvements in crude oil, natural gas, and refined petroleum product pipelines. 

IX. COST ESTIMATE

A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 

Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the Congressional 

Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to the Committee on 

Science prior to the filing of this report and is included in Section 

X of this report pursuant to House Rule XIII, clause 3(c)(3). 

H.R. 3929 does contain new budget authority, credit authority, or 

changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming that the sums 

authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R. 3929 does authorize additional discretionary spending, as described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the bill, which is contained in Section X of this report. 

X. CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, April 5, 2002. 

Hon. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, 

Chairman, Committee on Science, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3929, the Energy Pipeline 

Research, Development, and Demonstration Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Rachel Milberg. 

Sincerely, 

BARRY B. ANDERSON

(For Dan L. Crippen, Director). 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 3929—Energy Pipeline Research, Development, and Demonstration Act 

Summary: H.R. 3929 would direct the Department of Energy, the 

Department of Transportation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology to develop a five-year program for finding better ways to construct, inspect, and repair energy pipelines; reduce 

threats to energy pipelines from terrorists and the natural environment; and assess risks associated with energy pipelines. The bill 

would authorize the appropriation of $20 million a year over the 

2003–2007 period for this new program. CBO estimates that implementing this bill would cost $67 million over the 2003–2007 period, and another $33 million after fiscal 

year 2007. Enacting H.R. 3929 would not affect direct spending or 

receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply. 

H.R. 3929 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 

and would impose no cost on the budgets of state, local, or tribal 

governments. 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of H.R. 3929 is shown in the following table. The costs 

12

of this legislation fall within budget function 400 (transportation). 

For this estimate, CBO assumes enactment of H.R. 3929 in fiscal 

year 2002 and appropriation of the authorized amounts. Estimates 

of spending are based on information from the Department of Energy and historical spending patterns of similar programs.

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars—

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Authorization level ............................................................................... 20 20 20 20 20

Estimated outlays ............................................................................... 3 11 15 18 20

Pay-as-you-go considerations: None. 

Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 3929 contains 

no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in 

UMRA and would impose no cost on the budgets of state, local, or 

tribal governments. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Rachel Milberg; impact on 

state, local, and tribal governments: Angela Seitz; impact on the 

private sector: Jean Talarico. 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

XI. COMPLIANCE WITH PUBLIC LAW 104–4 (UNFUNDED MANDATES)

H.R. 3929 contains no unfunded mandates. 

XII. COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee on Science’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the body of this report. 

XIII. STATEMENT ON GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

Pursuant to clause (3)(c)(4) of House Rule XIII, the goal and objective of the bill is to authorize the DOT, DOE and NIST to develop and implement an R&D program focused on enhancing energy pipeline safety.

XIV. CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United States 

grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 3929. 

XV. FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE STATEMENT

Although DOT currently has two technical advisory committees 

that provide advice on technical aspects of the DOT’s standard setting responsibilities, the functions of the Pipeline Integrity Technical Advisory Committee (PITAC) established by H.R. 3929 are 

not currently being nor could they be performed by one or more 

agencies or by enlarging the mandate of another existing advisory 

committee. 

The Office of Pipeline Safety in DOT has two advisory committees that have been mandated by legislation. The Natural Gas 

Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 requires establishment of the Technical 

Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC), and the Hazardous 

Liquid Safety Act of 1979 requires creation of the Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (THLPSSC). 

The primary purpose of these two existing Committees is to review 

13

proposed pipeline safety standards for technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost effectiveness and practicability. The Committees also 

serve as a sounding board for discussing pipeline safety policy 

issues as well as legislative initiatives. The PITAC, established 

under section 3(c), on the other hand, would provide technical advice to the three participating agencies on the development and implementation of the RD&D program and in evaluating the program’s progress and results. 

XVI. CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT

The Committee finds that H.R. 3929 does not relate to the terms 

and conditions of employment or access to public services or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104–1). 

XVII. STATEMENT ON PREEMPTION OF STATE, LOCAL, OR TRIBAL LAW

This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or tribal law. 

XVIII. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED

This measure does not amend any existing Federal statute. 

XIX. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS

On March 20, 2002, a quorum being present, the Committee on 

Science favorably reported H.R. 3929, Energy Pipeline Research, 

Development, and Demonstration Act, by a voice vote, and recommended its enactment. 

XX. PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE MARKUP

PROCEEDINGS OF THE FULL COMMITTEE 

MARKUP ON H.R. 3929, ENERGY PIPELINE 

RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, AND DEMONSTRATION ACT 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, 

Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:40 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L. 

Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. The Committee on Science will be in order. 

First of all, I would like to advise all members that there is a signup sheet before each individual place, reflecting the views and estimates, and we would like you to read the Committee’s views and 

estimates, and hopefully, you will be inspired to sign the sheet indicating your approval. With that, let us get moving. 

The Committee on Science will be in order. Pursuant to notice, 

the Committee on Science is meeting today to consider the following measures. H.R. 2051, A Bill to Provide for the Establishment of Regional Plant Genome and Gene Expression Research and 

14

Development Centers. Thank you, Mr. Smith. H.R. 3389, the National Sea Grant Program Act Amendments of 2002, and H.R. 

3929, the Energy Pipeline Research, Development, and Demonstration Act. 

I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the Committee at any point, and without objection it is so ordered. Mr. Hall 

will be making his way here to present his opening remarks. Let 

me do mine. 

The three bills we have before us this morning deal with very 

different topics and come from three different subcommittees, but 

they do have a few key aspects in common. First, all three are bipartisan consensus bills. Once again, the Committee’s majority and 

minority staffs have worked in tandem to draft the bills that advance proposals from members on both sides of the aisle. This 

Committee continues to set an example of working together that 

others would do well to follow. Also, all three bills are designed to 

promote research and development, especially, long-term research 

and development that will help address critical societal problems. 

H.R. 2051 was designed to help strengthen American agriculture 

and alleviate malnutrition in the developing world. H.R. 3389 will 

help protect the nation’s coastal areas and fisheries and combat 

invasive species. And H.R. 3929 will help prevent pollution and 

pipeline explosions. These bills are not funding research for the 

sake of research whether they deal with abstruse matters of no 

concern to the rest of Congress or to the rest of the country. The 

research advances that will result from these measures will help 

improve the daily lives of people here and around the world. Let 

me say just a little bit more about each of these bills and then they 

will be described more fully by their sponsors as we mark up each 

one. 

H.R. 2051, offered by Chairman Nick Smith and Ranking Minority Member Eddie Bernice Johnson, will create two new programs 

on plant biotechnology at the National Science Foundation. The bill 

offers a balanced approach to biotech authorizing research not only 

to develop new genetic engineering techniques and products, but 

also, to examine the ecological and social consequences of bio-engineered plants. 

H.R. 3389, offered by Chairman Vernon Ehlers and Ranking Minority Member Jim Barcia, will reauthorize and reform the Sea 

Grant Program, while keeping it within the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. We will have to negotiate 

a final version of the bill with the Resources Committee before it 

can come to the Floor, and we plan to push in a strong and unified 

fashion for our version of this bill. However, we will, as Dr. Ehlers 

has committed, find a way to address the concerns Mr. Underwood 

has raised about the way the Sea Grant Program deals with the 

Pacific Islands. 

Finally, we will take up H.R. 3929, offered by Ranking Minority 

Member Ralph Hall and Lamar Smith, which will ensure that all 

the federal agencies with expertise in pipeline safety are engaged 

in research in that important area. We will work with the Energy 

and Commerce, and Transportation and Infrastructure Committees 

to move our bill as part of a comprehensive pipeline safety measure. 

15

So we have much to accomplish today and we will do it in the 

bipartisan fashion that has become the Committee’s hallmark. 

With that, the Chair recognizes Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, as usual, you have covered the waterfront pretty well. I just want to say that I support these three bills. 

We will have an amendment for the third bill, but on H.R. 2051, 

I want to congratulate Nick Smith and Ranking Democratic Member Eddie Bernice Johnson for their efforts on it. And of course, on 

the Sea Grant Program, your bill, I certainly support that and look 

forward to working with you, and you have recognized Chairman 

Ehlers and Representative Barcia. And on my bill, I will have an 

amendment of 3929 that we will discuss when we have a little 

more time. With that, thank you for doing a good job, and I yield 

back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE RALPH M. HALL

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,

First of all I want to thank you for working with us to develop this bill and bring 

it to the Full Committee for markup today. This bill is the product of a close collaboration on both sides of the aisle to produce legislation that will be of immense value 

to this Nation in ensuring that the natural gas, crude oil and refined products pipelines of this country are safer and more secure facilities as we move into the 21st 

century. And we are taking the first steps toward addressing the special considerations that need to be considered in the development of what we call the next-generation pipelines—those that will carry hydrogen, CO2 and perhaps other substances that will be part of the energy infrastructure of the future. 

Our thanks also go to our staffs for their hard work in preparing the bill for our 

consideration today. The legislative process has worked as it should—we held a legislative hearing and got some first-rate testimony on what the appropriate federal 

role should be in research and development. And we incorporated many of those recommendations in the substitute to the bill, which I will offer shortly. Other recommendations and suggestions will be reflected in the report to accompany the bill. 

These pipelines are an essential part of the Nation’s energy infrastructure. They 

are so affected with the public interest that special efforts need to be taken now 

to make certain that new technologies are developed or existing technologies adapted to make certain that these facilities are as safe and secure as they can be—and 

as soon as they can be. 

The bill brings the considerable capabilities of the Department of Energy (DOE) 

and its National Laboratories and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to bear in a much more prominent way to provide solutions to the 

safety and security needs of the Nation’s pipelines. The bill provides considerable 

flexibility to the participating agencies, the Department of Transportation, DOE and 

NIST, to develop a research plan—one that will be reviewed by a Technical Advisory 

Committee to ensure that the work being done is relevant and appropriate. 

Our intention is to merge this bill with the Pipeline Safety bill introduced by Don 

Young and Billy Tauzin. We believe that the language of this bill is very complementary and helpful to the larger bill, and we look forward to working with 

them, and the other members of the Transportation and Infrastructure and Energy 

and Commerce Committees in getting their support for these provisions. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman BOEHLERT. Thank you very much. And let me tell you, 

it is the Chair’s intent to move with dispatch. These bills have been 

looked at with the respective committee staffs. They are very able 

and very professional staffs, so we don’t envision a long markup 

here. We have a hearing immediately after with some very distinguished guests, and I know a number of our colleagues have conflicting commitments. So without objection, all members’ opening 

statements will be placed in the record at this point. 

16

H.R. 3929

11:03 a.m. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. We will now consider H.R. 3929, the Energy Pipeline Research, Development, and Demonstration Act. I 

ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and 

open to amendment at any point. I ask the members to proceed 

with the amendments in the order on the roster. Without objection, 

so ordered. 

[H.R. 3929 follows:]

17


G:\GRAPHICS\hr3929a.eps
18


G:\GRAPHICS\hr3929b.eps
19


G:\GRAPHICS\hr3929c.eps
20


G:\GRAPHICS\hr3929d.eps
21


G:\GRAPHICS\hr3929e.eps
22


G:\GRAPHICS\hr3929f.eps
23


G:\GRAPHICS\hr3929g.eps
24


G:\GRAPHICS\hr3929h.eps
25


G:\GRAPHICS\hr3929i.eps
26

Chairman BOEHLERT. The first amendment on the roster is an 

amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Hall on behalf of himself and Mr. Smith of Texas. The Clerk will report the 

amendment. 

The CLERK. Amendment to H.R. 3929, offered by Mr. Hall of 

Texas and Mr. Smith of Texas. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 

the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I now recognize the 

Ranking Member, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall, for 5 minutes to explain the amendment. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and Members of the Committee. The amendment we are offering today differs in several 

points from the original. Thanks to a lot of valuable feedback from 

the witnesses that you and that we together selected to testify for 

us last week, we have learned several things and made some 

changes, as much up-to-date changes as we could. In the finding 

section, we looked to amplify and clarify the scope and intent of the 

bill. For example, we removed some limiting language and the bill 

now includes all ‘‘energy’’ pipelines in its scope. Actually, we put 

an additional provision in the bill that defined energy pipelines as 

being natural gas, and crude oil, and refined products. That is on 

the last page, page 9, and includes LNG, and I think it is a good 

amendment, and I hope it will be accepted. 

In the events section, Section 3(a)(2), the substitute further highlights specific technologies for preventing and responding to pipeline failure, and we have noted the importance of R&D, and fire 

safety, and technology such as smart pigs. You will see that in the 

write-up or in the report language. These are simply instruments 

and packages that they run through the pipelines to detect defects 

and to give other information. It is a device that will detect the abnormalities inside the pipe and outside. And likewise, we have enhanced the security and surveillance provision to address the growing concern of outside threats to our nation’s pipeline infrastructure. I think it is a good amendment. 

In the activities and capabilities section, we have changed the 

language some to ensure the agencies take into account research 

that is done in other agencies and to adjust their efforts accordingly. 

So finally, we have added three definitions for energy pipeline, 

next generation pipeline, and pipeline and various conforming languages changed to accommodate the definitions. You can see the 

definitions if you need to at the end of the bill there, simply enlarged. I yield back my time. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Is there any further discussion? If not, the 

vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye. Opposed, no. 

The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. 

[Amendment to H.R. 3929 follows:]

27


G:\GRAPHICS\hr3929j.eps
28


G:\GRAPHICS\hr3929k.eps
29


G:\GRAPHICS\hr3929l.eps
30


G:\GRAPHICS\hr3929m.eps
31


G:\GRAPHICS\hr3929n.eps
32


G:\GRAPHICS\hr3929o.eps
33


G:\GRAPHICS\hr3929p.eps
34


G:\GRAPHICS\hr3929q.eps
35


G:\GRAPHICS\hr3929r.eps
36


G:\GRAPHICS\hr3929s.eps
37


G:\GRAPHICS\hr3929t.eps
38


G:\GRAPHICS\hr3929u.eps
39

Chairman BOEHLERT. Are there any further amendments? Hearing none, the question is on the bill H.R. 3929, the Energy Pipeline 

Research, Development, and Demonstration Act. All in favor will 

say aye. Opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have 

it. I will now recognize Mr. Hall for a motion. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably 

report H.R. 3929 as amended to the House with the recommendation that the bill as amended do pass. Furthermore, I move that 

the staff be instructed to prepare the legislative report and make 

necessary technical and conforming changes, and that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill before the House for 

consideration sooner rather than later. 

Chairman BOEHLERT. Any questions on the motion to report the 

bill favorably? Those in favor of the motion will signify by saying 

aye. Opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it, and the bill is favorably reported. I move that members have two subsequent calendar 

days in which to submit supplemental minority or additional views 

on the measure. Without objection so ordered. I move pursuant to 

Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the Rules of the House of Representatives 

that the Committee authorize the Chairman to offer such motions 

as may be necessary in the House to go to conference with the Senate on the bill H.R. 3929 or a similar Senate bill. Without objection, 

so ordered. 

That concludes the Committee markup. 

[Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m., the Committee proceeded to other 

business.]

Æ