[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO EXAMINE PIPELINE SAFETY REAUTHORIZATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 1, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-121
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-150 WASHINGTON : 2017
_________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRED UPTON, Michigan
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman Emeritus Ranking Member
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREG WALDEN, Oregon GENE GREEN, Texas
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas LOIS CAPPS, California
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Vice Chairman JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DORIS O. MATSUI, California
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington KATHY CASTOR, Florida
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey JERRY McNERNEY, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky PETER WELCH, Vermont
PETE OLSON, Texas BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
BILLY LONG, Missouri Massachusetts
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina TONY CARDENAS, California
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
BILL FLORES, Texas
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
CHRIS COLLINS, New York
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
Subcommittee on Energy and Power
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
Chairman
PETE OLSON, Texas BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois JERRY McNERNEY, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania PAUL TONKO, New York
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman GENE GREEN, Texas
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia LOIS CAPPS, California
MIKE POMPEO, Kansas MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois KATHY CASTOR, Florida
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio PETER WELCH, Vermont
BILLY LONG, Missouri JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
BILL FLORES, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma officio)
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
JOE BARTON, Texas
FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 3
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Witnesses
Marie Therese Dominguez, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration................................ 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Answers to submitted questions............................... 162
Norman J. Saari, Commissioner, Michigan Public Service Commission
(on behalf of the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners)................................................. 51
Prepared statement........................................... 53
Ron Bradley, Vice President of Gas Operations, Peco Energy (on
behalf of the American Gas Association)........................ 72
Prepared statement........................................... 74
Andrew Black, President and CEO, Association of Oil Pipe Lines... 100
Prepared statement........................................... 102
Donald Santa, President and CEO, Interstate Natural Gas
Association of America......................................... 111
Prepared statement........................................... 113
Carl Weimer, Executive Director, Pipeline Safety Trust........... 121
Prepared statement........................................... 123
Answers to submitted questions............................... 169
Submitted Material
Letter of February 29, 2016, from Ms. Capps to the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration...................... 151
Statement of the American Public Gas Association................. 154
LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO EXAMINE PIPELINE SAFETY REAUTHORIZATION
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Power,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Olson, Shimkus,
Latta, Harper, McKinley, Griffith, Johnson, Long, Mullin,
Hudson, Upton (ex officio), Rush, McNerney, Tonko, Capps,
Doyle, Yarmuth, Loebsack, and Pallone (ex officio).
Staff present: Gary Andres, Staff Director; Will Batson,
Legislative Clerk, E&P, E&E; Leighton Brown, Deputy Press
Secretary; Allison Busbee, Policy Coordinator, Energy & Power;
Tom Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy & Power; A.T.
Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor; Brandon Mooney, Prof. Staff
Member, E&P; Annelise Rickert, Legislative Associate; Chris
Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment & Economy; Dan
Schneider, Press Secretary; Christine Brennan, Minority Press
Secretary; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Rick Kessler,
Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and
Environment; John Marshall, Minority Policy Coordinator;
Alexander Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst; Andrew Souvall,
Minority Director of Communications, Outreach and Member
Services; and Tuley Wright, Minority Energy and Environment
Policy Advisor.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Whitfield. Good morning and I would like to call our
hearing to order this morning. And I would like to recognize
myself for a 5 minute opening statement.
First of all, I want to thank all of our witnesses today.
We have two panels of witnesses and I certainly want to thank
Administrator Dominguez for her constructive comments and her
commitment to work with our committee.
This morning we are going to be examining a discussion
draft of a bill that reauthorizes the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration pipeline safety program. This
discussion draft contains targeted mandates for PHMSA to
increase transparency and accountability, complete overview
regulations, and improve safety.
I might say that working with the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, the House successfully ushered
through the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job
Creation Act of 2011 on a bipartisan basis. Now it is time to
update that law. With today's changing energy landscape and the
need to modernize infrastructure greater than ever, we are
looking forward to a productive discussion on our draft bill
with a goal of reporting to the full House the legislation by
this spring for its consideration. Our Senate colleagues, I
might say, on the Commerce, Science and Transportation
Committee reported S. 2276 the SAFE PIPES Act on December 9,
2015, and we believe that a strong, bipartisan, bicameral
effort will yield a public law we can all be proud of.
I might say that I want to point out the unfinished
business from the last reauthorization. The 2011 pipeline
safety law included 42 mandates on PHMSA and 16 of them remain
incomplete, well beyond the statutorily-imposed deadlines. So
our discussion draft will require the Administrator to
prioritize overdue regulations ahead of new rulemakings and
keep us updated on that progress.
So I really look forward to our discussion this morning.
And at this point, I would like to yield the balance of my time
to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Ed Whitfield
I am pleased that we are at the point of having a
legislative hearing on pipeline safety reauthorization. I want
to thank all of our witnesses for their time and thoughtful
comments. In particular, I want to thank Administrator
Dominguez for her constructive comments and her commitment to
work with our committee.
The Energy and Commerce Committee has been at the forefront
of improving pipeline safety. Members today will examine a
discussion draft of a bill that reauthorizes the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) pipeline
safety program. The discussion draft contains targeted mandates
for PHMSA to increase transparency and accountability, complete
overdue regulations, and improve safety.
This committee has a proud, longstanding tradition of
working together when it comes to pipeline safety. Together
with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the House
successfully ushered through the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory
Certainty and Job Creation Act of 2011 on a bipartisan basis.
Now it's time to update that law. With today's changing energy
landscape and the need to modernize infrastructure greater than
ever, we are looking forward to a productive discussion on our
draft bill that allows this committee to move expeditiously, so
we can report a bill to the full House this spring for its
consideration. Our Senate colleagues on the Commerce, Science
and Transportation Committee reported S 2276, the Safe PIPES
Act on December 9, 2015. We believe that a strong bipartisan-
bicameral effort will yield a public law we can all be proud
of.
I do need to point out the unfinished business from the
last reauthorization. The 2011 Pipeline Safety law included 42
mandates of PHMSA and 16 of them remain incomplete well beyond
the statutorily imposed deadlines. Our discussion draft
requires the Administrator to prioritize overdue regulations
ahead of new rulemakings and keep us updated on their progress.
To make sure we are not being too rigid, exceptions are allowed
when there is a significant need for a new regulation.
Another provision of the draft bill that has received
strong support is section 6, which would require the Secretary
of Transportation, no later than 30 days after the completion
of a pipeline inspection, to conduct a post-inspection briefing
with the operator outlining any concerns. This provision will
ensure that un-safe conditions are corrected as quickly as
possible.
The draft legislation before us today also contains
requirements for new safety regulations relating to underground
gas storage facilities and underwater hazardous liquid pipeline
facilities and response plans.
This is just a preview of some of the provisions reflected
in the draft before us today. I look forward to a robust
discussion about the lessons learned from the past and ways to
prepare for the future.
Mr. Olson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief.
Pipeline safety is bipartisan. I am a pro-energy, pro-growth
congressman from the pro-growth, pro-energy city of Houston,
Texas. But growth only happens if the people trust us, if we
get safety right.
Industry does its best but government must do its part,
too. Sensible rules need to be written and effectively
enforced. Mistakes cost lives. Inaction costs lives. And that
is why I would like to thank my friend and chairman for holding
this hearing on a draft bill to reauthorize the Pipeline Safety
Act. It is an important step forward. This bill includes some
critical language on having safety inspectors that my good
friend and fellow Texan, Gene Green, and I wrote with another
Texan, Brian Babin and Janice Hahn, a Californian, who went to
college in Amarillo and Abilene, Texas.
This process for having inspectors at the federal level is
slow and difficult. Let us cut the red tape, put inspectors on
the ground. Let us get safety right. I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. This time I
recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, for his 5
minute opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this important and timely hearing today on pipeline safety
reauthorization. I want to also welcome Administrator Dominguez
to the subcommittee and thank her for being here.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, it seems that every time we
have a hearing on pipeline safety, we do so with a backdrop of
either an ongoing spill or in the immediate aftermath of one.
Of course, the most recent high-profile incident involved in
2015 the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage field in Los Angeles
where it is estimated that over 90,000 metric tons of methane
escaped into the atmosphere and thousands of families have been
impacted.
Other high-profile leaks include the May 2015 crude oil
spill from a pipeline operated by Plains All American Pipeline,
along the Santa Barbara County coastline. Before that, there
was a July 2010 Enbridge spill near Marshall, Michigan. And
later, that same year in September, there was also the Pacific
Gas and Electric Company natural gas explosion in San Bruno in
the suburbs of San Francisco just to name a few.
Mr. Chairman, we all know that pipelines are necessary and
we must continue to build them to meet the energy needs of our
nation. However, Mr. Chairman, we also know that many of the
current pipelines are aging and they must be replaced, which
may lead to additional problems if we keep kicking the
proverbial can down the road.
Mr. Chairman, we must ensure the American public that this
subcommittee or jurisdiction is doing everything within our
authority to ensure that more current and future pipelines are
as safe as possible.
In the past, the issue of pipeline safety has been one that
we are working on in a bipartisan manner. And it is my hope and
my expectation that we will continue to do so in the same
tradition as we address this important issue in this current
Congress.
So again, Mr. Chairman, I applaud you and with that I yield
the balance of my time to my wonderful colleague from great
State of California, Ms. Capps.
Ms. Capps. Thank you. I thank my ranking member for
yielding and thank you Chairman Whitfield and Ranking Member
Rush for holding this hearing, Chairman Upton and Ranking
Member Pallone, for ensuring we consider pipeline safety in
this committee.
Welcome, Administrator Dominguez. Thank you for visiting my
district recently.
On May 19th, the Plains Pipeline 901 ruptured in my
district, dumping over 120,000 gallons of crude oil along
California's Gaviota Coast and into the ocean. This incident
not only affected public health and the environment, but also
our local economy that is strongly reliant on tourism, as well
as the fishing and shrimping industries. While the May spill
happened in my community, nearly all of us have miles, hundreds
of miles of pipeline running through our districts, allowing
for the transport of natural gas and hazardous liquids, like
crude oil, across our country.
So today's topic, pipeline safety, is incredibly important
to each of us. That is why it is critical that our committee
come together as it historically has to produce a strong
bipartisan pipeline safety bill that builds on the lessons
learned in the Plains spill, as well as incidents that have
occurred across the country. I am hopeful we can again make
this a strong bipartisan effort.
Unfortunately, the draft language as currently written is
inadequate in providing the much-needed updates to pipeline
safety legislation to ensure the protection of our public
health and the environment.
Whether we are discussing the pipeline rupture in my
district last May or the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage leak
just to the south of my district, these incidents occur all too
frequently. And each time a failure occurs, as it recently did
in Chairman Upton's and Ranking Member Pallone's and my
district, the need to act becomes even more clear. It is
critical that we take the steps and the lessons from these
incidents and use them to strengthen our pipeline safety
infrastructure. For example, the spill in my district
highlighted the inadequacies of the in-line inspection process
currently used by PHMSA. Even with the shortened inspection
interval, the Plains pipeline failed spilling crude across the
landscape into the ocean.
So we have many results of this survey and PHMSA has the
authority and the resources to require an appropriate time line
for inspections for every single pipeline in our country. We
must ensure that the results from these surveys are made
available to PHMSA and the public in a timely manner. We must
strengthen the high consequence areas designation, something
this draft falls short on. And there is room to strengthen
these provisions in the draft before us. We must.
We have this opportunity to improve the existing
legislative requirements for pipeline safety. I ask that the
chairman work closely with all of us to improve this bill.
Thank you. And I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentlelady's time has expired. At this
time, I recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr.
Upton, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me just respond
to my friend, Ms. Capps. I look forward to working with you and
your staff and we are continuing to do that.
Pipeline safety is something that I take very seriously.
And it has long been a priority for me as well as this
committee. Spills, as we know, can be very disastrous and it is
imperative that our laws stay up to date and work to minimize
potential damage as well as try to prevent them from happening
in the first place.
In the wake of the serious oil spill that affected the
Kalamazoo River, just outside of my district, I worked on a
strong bipartisan basis with my friend, John Dingell, in
conjunction with our friends on the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee to enact the Pipeline Safety,
Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011. While the
legislation's name might be hard to remember, its positive
effects are not. This bipartisan bill, law, helps prevent
pipeline failures, strengthens safety standards, and holds
those responsible for pipeline accidents accountable.
We cannot achieve the intended objectives of the Pipeline
Safety Act until it has been fully implemented. The hearing
last July revealed that PHMSA has failed to implement many of
the mandates required by the law under the Pipeline Safety Act
of 2011. Today, over 4 years after enactment, at least 16
important safety regulations remain overdue. Rulemakings
related to leak detection and emergency shutoff valves, public
education and awareness, accident and incident notification are
among some of the mandates PHMSA has failed to implement which
would greatly improve pipeline safety.
The discussion draft before us today, Pipeline Safety Act
of 2016, is a starting point in reauthorizing the 2011 law. The
draft seeks to increase regulatory transparency, speed the
completion of overdue safety regs, tighten standards for
underground natural gas storage facilities and underwater oil
pipelines and reauthorizes PHMSA's pipeline safety programs.
Taken together, I believe that the provisions included within
the draft will go a long way towards improving pipeline safety,
increasing the public confidence in our nation's energy
infrastructure.
And as we learned when examining the Kalamazoo spill, we
needed to do a lot better job to improve pipeline safety. I
think that we have made some progress with this draft and the
draft bill is certainly an important step forward.
One of the things that I initiated is a new provision
requiring annual inspections that are fully transparent for
some deep water crossings of existing pipelines. That is, in
fact, Section 12 of the discussion draft would require annual
inspections for deep underwater pipelines. A change in the law
would mean that lines that cross under the Straits of Mackinac
between the Upper and Lower Peninsula of Michigan would be
required to be inspected every year, rather than every 5 years
and those results made public.
Though I may not be able to stay for the entire hearing
this morning, I would appreciate your comments, maybe even in
your opening statement, as to the support, hopeful support, of
that provision as part of this bill.
Feedback provided by our witnesses today will place us on a
path towards enacting a bipartisan and meaningful
reauthorization bill. I look forward to continuing with working
with our colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, as well as our colleagues in the Senate, to get this
bill done. And I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton
Pipeline safety is something I take very personally, and it
has long been a priority for me, and this committee. Spills can
prove disastrous, and it is imperative that our laws stay up to
date and work to minimize potential damage, as well as try to
prevent them from happening in the first place.
In the wake of the serious oil spill that affected the
Kalamazoo River in my district, I worked on a bipartisan basis
with my friend John Dingell--and in conjunction with our
friends on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee--to
enact the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job
Creation Act of 2011. While the legislation's name might be
hard to remember, its positive effects are not. This bipartisan
bill helps prevent pipeline failures, strengthens safety
standards, and holds those responsible for pipeline accidents
accountable.
We cannot achieve the intended objectives of the Pipeline
Safety Act until it has been fully implemented. A hearing last
July revealed that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA) has failed to implement many of the
mandates required by law under the Pipeline Safety Act of 2011.
Today, over 4 years after enactment, at least 16 important
safety regulations remain overdue. Rulemakings related to leak
detection and emergency shutoff valves, public education and
awareness, and accident and incident notification are among
some of the mandates PHMSA has failed to implement and which
would greatly improve pipeline safety.
The discussion draft before us today, the Pipeline Safety
Act of 2016, is a starting point in reauthorizing the 2011 law.
The draft seeks to increase regulatory transparency, speed the
completion of overdue safety regulations, tighten standards for
underground natural gas storage facilities and underwater oil
pipelines, and reauthorize PHMSA's pipeline safety programs.
Taken together, I believe the provisions included within the
draft will go a long way toward improving pipeline safety
increasing the public confidence in our nation's energy
infrastructure.
As we learned when examining the Kalamazoo spill, we needed
to do a lot better job to improve pipeline safety. We have made
progress, much work remains, and this draft bill is an
important step forward.
I'm hopeful the testimony and feedback provided by our
witnesses today will place us on a path toward enacting a
bipartisan and meaningful reauthorization bill. I also look
forward to continue to working with our colleagues on the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee as we move ahead.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. At this time, I
will recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for
5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield and Ranking
Member Rush for holding this hearing on pipeline safety
reauthorization and the discussion draft released by the
committee last Friday. While I believe the draft could and
should be much stronger, it is a good start and includes some
important provisions on underground gas storage, pipeline
safety, Technical Assistance Grants, and mandamus.
The vast network of transmission pipelines in this country
are essentially ``out of sight, out of mind'' for most
Americans. But when something goes wrong, these facilities can
make themselves known in devastating and sometimes deadly ways.
Over the last year, we have witnessed both 100,000 gallon crude
oil spill into pristine coastline in Representative Capps'
district in California and a massive gas storage facility leak
in Los Angeles. The leak forced thousands of people from their
homes for long periods of time and released 96,000 metric tons
of methane into the atmosphere, the climate-damaging equivalent
of burning 900 million gallons of gasoline.
My own district experienced the devastation of a pipeline
failure in 1994 when a pipeline exploded in Edison, New Jersey,
destroying about 300 homes. Yet, two decades and four
reauthorizations later, the Department of Transportation's
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or
PHMSA, has made little progress in my opinion in securing the
safety of our nation's pipeline infrastructure.
I hope that will soon change and I welcome the new
Administrator Dominguez who I believe understands these
concerns. It appears you and Secretary Fox are determined to
bring positive change to this agency and I sincerely hope you
succeed in your efforts to ensure the safety of our pipeline
system. We look forward to helping you in any way that we can.
The discussion draft before us is a modest, but balanced
starting point for that effort. The draft contains language to
address regulation of underground gas storage facilities like
Aliso Canyon in California that leaked methane for 5 months
until just a week ago. However, I don't believe that it goes
far enough and I hope the committee will consider adopting the
stronger language of H.R. 4578, authored by Representative Brad
Sherman, who represents the residents around this facility and
lives in the neighborhood that experienced the most direct
adverse effects of the leak.
I am encouraged that this draft includes language authored
by Mr. Green that will allow us to finally begin a conversation
about the need for PHMSA to have a direct power of authority.
It is also critical that we provide the necessary tools--
including funding--so the agency can attract the best and
brightest inspectors and safety experts in order to carry out
its responsibilities. We should also give the agency carefully
crafted emergency order authority to ensure that PHMSA can
address situations and facilities that pose a threat to life,
property, and the environment. And we should remove barriers to
PHMSA's success, such as the multiple layers of overly
prescriptive risk assessment and cost benefit analysis that
have hampered the agency's efforts to improve safety.
Finally, I am pleased that the draft contains a provision
restoring the ability of the public to compel PHMSA to perform
its nondiscretionary obligations. This provision is necessary
to address an incorrect reading of the 2002 reauthorization by
the Ninth Circuit. While I have great respect for the courts,
it is clear to me that the Ninth Circuit's reading of the
Pipeline Safety Act with regard to mandamus was just plain
wrong. The law always contemplated mandamus-type suits to
ensure PHMSA does its job. The mandamus language added to the
statute in 2002, as part of the whistleblower protection
provision, was always intended to be in addition to what was
already in the statute not in lieu of the existing language as
the court incorrectly stated. At our hearing last year, we all
voiced frustration at PHMSA's inaction on a number of fronts.
While I know Administrator Dominguez is trying to change this
situation, it is still important for the public to have the
ability to access the courts to ensure PHMSA is keeping our
pipeline system safe.
And while I believe the discussion draft could be stronger,
it is important to know that the last three pipeline safety and
reauthorizations were truly bipartisan efforts that moved our
nation forward on safety. Our committee has always produced the
best and strongest pipeline safety legislation and I look
forward to continuing to work with Chairman Upton, Chairman
Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, Representative Capps, and
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to produce truly
meaningful legislation that protects lives, property, and the
environment while providing more certainty and reducing
unnecessary burdens on industry.
So thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance
of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Thank you Chairman Whitfield and Ranking Member Rush for
holding this hearing on pipeline safety reauthorization and the
discussion draft released by the committee last Friday. While I
believe the draft could and should be much stronger, it is a
good start and includes some important provisions on
underground gas storage, pipeline safety technical assistance
grants and mandamus.
The vast network of transmission pipelines in this country
are essentially ``out of sight, out of mind'' for most
Americans. But when something goes wrong, these facilities can
make themselves known in devastating and sometimes deadly ways.
Over the last year we've witnessed both a 100,000 gallon crude
oil spill onto pristine coastline in Rep. Capps' district in
California and a massive gas storage facility leak in Los
Angeles. The leak forced thousands of people from their homes
for long periods of time and released 96,000 metric tons of
methane into the atmosphere--the climate damaging equivalent of
burning 900 million gallons of gasoline.
My own district experienced the devastation of a pipeline
failure in 1994 when a pipeline exploded in Edison, New Jersey
destroying about 300 homes. Yet, two decades and four
reauthorizations later, the Department of Transportation's
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration or PHMSA
has made little progress in securing the safety of our nation's
pipeline infrastructure.
I hope that will soon change, and I welcome new
Administrator Dominguez, who I believe understands these
concerns. It appears you and Secretary Foxx are determined to
bring positive change to this agency. I sincerely hope you
succeed in your efforts to ensure the safety of our pipeline
system and we look forward to helping you any way we can.
The discussion draft before us is a modest, but balanced
starting point for that effort. The draft contains language to
address regulation of underground gas storage facilities like
Aliso Canyon in California that leaked methane for 5 months
until just a week ago. However, I don't believe that it goes
far enough, and I hope the Committee will consider adopting the
stronger language of H.R. 4578, authored by Rep. Brad Sherman
who represents the residents around this facility and lives in
the neighborhood that experienced the most direct adverse
effects of the leak.
I'm encouraged that this draft includes language authored
by Mr. Green that will allow us to finally begin a conversation
about the need for PHMSA to have direct hire authority. It's
also critical that we provide the necessary tools--including
funding--so the agency can attract the best and brightest
inspectors and safety experts in order to carry out its
responsibilities. We should also give the Agency carefully
crafted emergency order authority to ensure that PHMSA can
address situations and facilities that pose a threat to life,
property, and the environment. And, we should remove barriers
to PHMSA's success, such as the multiple layers of overly
prescriptive risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis that
have hampered the agency's efforts to improve safety.
Finally, I'm pleased that the draft contains a provision
restoring the ability of the public to compel PHMSA to perform
its non-discretionary obligations. This provision is necessary
to address an incorrect reading of the 2002 reauthorization by
the Ninth Circuit. While I have a great respect for the courts,
it's clear to me that the Ninth Circuit's reading of the
Pipeline Safety Act with regard to mandamus was just plain
wrong: the law always contemplated mandamus-type suits to
ensure PHMSA does its job. The mandamus language added to the
statute in 2002 as part of the whistleblower protection
provision was always intended to be an addition to what was
already in the statute, not in lieu of the existing language as
the Court incorrectly stated. At our hearing last year, we all
voiced frustration at PHMSA's inaction on a number of fronts.
While I know Administrator Dominguez is trying to change this
situation, it is still important for the public to have the
ability to access the courts to ensure PHMSA is keeping our
pipeline system safe.
While I believe the discussion draft could be stronger,
it's important to note that the last three pipeline safety
reauthorizations were truly bipartisan efforts that moved our
nation forward on safety. Our committee has always produced the
best and strongest pipeline safety legislation. I look forward
to continuing to work with Chairman Upton and Chairman
Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, Rep. Capps and colleagues on
both sides of the aisle to produce truly meaningful legislation
that protects lives, property and the environment while
providing more certainty and reducing unnecessary burdens on
industry.
Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Pallone yields back the balance of his
time, so that concludes the opening statements.
And I would like to introduce our only witness on Panel 1
this morning and that the Honorable Marie Therese Dominguez,
who is the Administrator for the Pipeline and Hazardous
Material Safety Administration at the U.S. Department of
Transportation. She has had an illustrious career. She was the
Assistant Secretary for Civil Works over at the Army Corps of
Engineers, as well as other positions. We are delighted that
you are here. We look forward to your testimony and the
opportunity to ask questions. So you are recognized for 5
minutes, Madam Administrator.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARIE THERESE DOMINGUEZ,
ADMINISTRATOR, PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Dominguez. Thank you, sir. Good morning. Chairmen
Upton, Whitfield, Ranking Members Pallone and Rush, and members
of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today
on the reauthorization of the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration's pipeline safety program.
PHMSA operates in a dynamic and challenging atmosphere. The
demand for our work has increased as has the complexity and
scope of our mission and responsibilities. The development of
new energy resources, advancements in technology, and the use
of hazardous materials in everyday products impact
transportation safety.
Recent incidents and increased public awareness and
sensitivity to safety hazards and environmental consequences
have resulted in increased scrutiny of the agency and it
demands that we become proactive, innovative, and forward-
looking in all that we do.
Addressing the mandates in the Pipeline Safety Act of 2011
is a priority of PHMSA. The Act included 42 new congressional
mandates to advance PHMSA's safety mission and we have
completed 26 of those mandates to date.
Since I was appointed last summer, we have made progress in
addressing four outstanding rulemakings, including publishing a
final rule on pipeline damage prevention programs and proposed
rulemakings on expanding the use of excess flow valves in
distribution pipelines, as well as operator qualification, cost
recovery, and accident notification, and a significant rule
addressing safety of hazardous liquid pipelines.
We are currently and actually, I just got news this
morning, that OMB has completed its review and we are planning
on publishing within the next couple of weeks gas transmission,
the gas transmission rule which has been outstanding.
Congress has made investments in PHMSA, providing 100 new
positions for the pipeline safety program in the last year. And
we have filled over 91 percent of these positions.
Moving forward, we must continue to utilize the investments
Congress has provided wisely. Over the past 6 months, I have
worked to better understand PHMSA's strengths, capability gaps,
and areas for improvement. We have undertaken an organizational
assessment that evaluated the agency's structure and processes.
This assessment provided PHMSA's leadership team deeper insight
into an organization where safety is a personal value for all
of our talented and dedicated employees. And it also
highlighted critical investment areas.
As a result, PHMSA has updated its strategic framework,
recognizing the need to improve our capacity to leverage data
and economic analysis, to promote continuous improvement in
safety performance through the establishment of safety-
management systems, both within the agency and across the
industry, and by creating a division that will support
consistency in mission execution. This new framework called
PHMSA 2021 was directly informed by PHMSA employees and will
allow us to be more predictive, consistent, and responsive as
we fulfill our mission in protecting people and the environment
by advancing the safe transportation of energy and other
hazardous materials that are essential to the daily lives of
all Americans.
PHMSA 2021 will allow us to better prioritize our work and
be proactive in informing, planning, and execution. It will
also allow us to be more predictive in our efforts to mitigate
future safety issues and to implement data-driven, risk-based
inspections, leading our regulated communities in a direction
that powers our economy, cultivates innovation, and prioritizes
safety.
Thank you for continuing to invest in PHMSA. I look forward
to continuing to work with the Congress to reauthorize PHMSA's
pipeline safety program and I would be pleased to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dominguez follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Whitfield. Well, thank you, Administrator Dominguez,
and I recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions.
In your opening statement you made reference to the gas
transmission regulation. Is that proposed at this point? You
all are not getting ready to finalize that.
Ms. Dominguez. It is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
Mr. Whitfield. OK. And that was one of the----
Ms. Dominguez. That is one of the outstanding mandates.
Mr. Whitfield. And how many outstanding mandates are there
right now?
Ms. Dominguez. Right now there are 16. If we address the
gas transmission rule that addresses several different sections
of the Pipeline Act of 2011. And as I said, that will be
addressed in the coming weeks.
Mr. Whitfield. Right. Well, we appreciate that. You came to
PHMSA, you had not been involved in PHMSA before. You were
appointed to this position, I guess. You took over, was it in
August?
Ms. Dominguez. I was confirmed in August of last year.
Mr. Whitfield. Yes. If you were speaking to the Rotary Club
in rural Kentucky, for example, and you were talking about
safety of our national pipelines, how would you characterize it
to a layman today, our system here in the U.S.?
Ms. Dominguez. Well, having worked at PHMSA, I can tell you
that first and foremost the employees of PHMSA are incredibly
dedicated to our safety mission. And the safety mission
encompasses hazardous materials and pipelines. And I can tell
you that that level of dedication extends across the board to
every aspect of our rulemaking, our inspection process, and our
enforcement regime that we undertake as an agency. Pipelines is
one aspect of that. It is a mode of transportation for
hazardous materials that we regulate. We take our mission very
seriously and look to make sure that we are continuously
working to improve that framework for safety.
Mr. Whitfield. Now I think the pipeline industry safety
record is generally improving, but concerns have been expressed
about a series of accidents. You think overall we are doing
better, right? Or are you concerned about overall--some of
these pipelines are pretty old. Some of the improvements that
need to be made have been delayed because of the uncertainty
about regulations and so forth. Do you think that the fact that
these mandates have not been completed yet, is that
contributing in a significant way to increased safety issues in
your view or not?
Ms. Dominguez. I think we have opportunity, given the 2011
requirements to continue to enhance safety. I think in
particular the two rules that we have been working on most
aggressively in the last 6 months certainly that I have
personally engaged on are first the hazardous liquid rule, and
second, this gas transmission rule. Both of those were
requirements from the 2011 act and are very significant to
actually improving the safety of both gas and liquid
transmission. And they expand some of the requirements that
will certainly enhance safety and we believe lead to greater
protections across the board for people and the environment.
Mr. Whitfield. Section 15 of our discussion draft is in
parentheses, and it would allow a private individual to file a
lawsuit against PHMSA for failure to perform a non-
discretionary duty. Have you or has PHMSA taken a position on
that particular part of this draft?
Ms. Dominguez. We have had a chance to review the language
that was published by the committee. I would be happy to work
with the committee moving forward on how to best frame that
provision, that particular provision. But obviously, there are
provisions for citizens to have the right to sue, whether it is
the Federal Government or private entities.
Mr. Whitfield. They can sue you already as a matter of
fact.
Ms. Dominguez. Yes.
Mr. Whitfield. OK. I will yield back the balance of my
time. Thank you very much. I recognize Mr. Rush for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Administrator Dominguez, last week we had a very
informative and inspirational meeting in my office. We briefly
discussed the process for hiring talent for PHMSA, the
challenges that PHMSA faced when competing against the private
sector, and I think that some of your insights need to be
shared with the members of this subcommittee regarding some of
the challenges and some of the possible remedies to help the
agency attract top candidates to help you accomplish and
achieve your mission.
And in your comments, would you include your thoughts about
Mr. Green's proposal and whether or not this speaks towards the
issue? Give us some insight into your challenges?
Ms. Dominguez. Thank you, sir. I believe you are referring
to the ability for PHMSA to do direct hire. And the committee
is certainly taking that up in their draft legislation. And I
very much appreciate it.
The Congress has been incredibly generous in providing
funds to PHMSA. Over the last year alone we were provided 122
new positions to the agency. One hundred nine of those
positions went directly to the pipeline safety program. And we
have been working diligently to try and fill those as quickly
as possible. We are at about a 91 percent fill rate right now.
But I will tell you that it is difficult to compete against the
private sector in particular. Everyone is going after great
talent in this country and the provision that has been provided
on direct hire authority would greatly assist us regardless of
what the market is in making sure that we can bring on folks in
a timely way. And the federal process is such that direct hire
authority would definitely assist us in making sure that we are
able to access the folks with the talent and skills to work in
these critical jobs.
Mr. Rush. And so let me move on to another matter. What
role should Congress play in helping to address the issue of
replacing the nation's aging pipeline infrastructure? As you
know, at one point during the negotiations of the larger energy
bill last year, this subcommittee discussed the idea of
creating a grant program to help mitigate the cost of replacing
these aging pipelines for low-income families. Unfortunately,
that program was scrapped.
What do you believe is the proper role that Congress should
play in this debate? Should the role of Congress be one of
providing for national support, offering guidance, lessening
minimal safety standards or something else entirely?
Ms. Dominguez. I believe that the role of the Congress is
to make sure that we provide the most stringent opportunity for
safety in the pipeline area. And so the TAG grants that you are
referring to, the Technical Assistance Grants that the states
have offered are truly valuable investments to local
communities. And they have helped educate communities on safety
pipeline issues. They have helped emergency responders across
the board. And PHMSA, I believe, has employed some very good
internal controls on how we actually use those programs we have
reviewed and our processes are such that how we award them and
how they are actually administered is a good way forward. So we
appreciated the provisions that were provided and they have
clearly done good work in communities.
Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the
chair recognizes the chair, Mr. Upton.
Mr. Olson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Olson. I thank the chair. Welcome, Administrator
Dominguez. I would like to talk about staffing at PHMSA, where
are we now, where you would like to go, and how can DHA help?
Following up on a lot of questions from Ranking Member Rush.
In your testimony, you mentioned that direct hire authority
would cut hiring time from 100 days to 30 days, a 70 percent
reduction by the math. As I mentioned in my opening statement,
Gene Green and I have a bipartisan bill to give PHMSA, you, DHA
authority for a few years as you work through the new
regulations.
Obviously, hiring only matters if you get those inspectors
in the field. Would you please talk about how PHMSA is
improving training for inspectors?
Ms. Dominguez. Thank you for the question. We have, as I
noted, we have been aggressively hiring and the opportunity
right now, we have been able to fill about 91 percent of our
positions. That said, as we bring people on board, we have a
very rigorous training program that we have rehabbed and
literally put in place. It is a boot camp of sorts, not only
just for our new inspectors, but the states are also doing a
lot of hiring as well. And the state inspectors are also
participating in this training. It is being conducted at our
Training and Qualifications Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
We just hired a new director over the course of the last 6
months. He comes with a great deal of experience in this field.
And as inspectors are deployed, they will have some of the
latest and greatest tools at their dispense to use.
Mr. Olson. And that's important. Thank you, ma'am. About
Section 2 and Section 3 of the discussion draft. They require
PHMSA to keep Congress and the public informed of the status of
overdue rules and tackle them before beginning new rulemakings.
Do you agree that this is a sensible and achievable requirement
and any concerns about pressure points where you might feel
some pressure to comply with these ideas, these new policies?
Ms. Dominguez. As I noted in my opening statement, the
prioritization of the 2011 mandates is something we take
extremely seriously at PHMSA and completing those mandates is
truly a priority. That said, there is always emerging risk that
needs to be addressed. And so I appreciate the opportunity to
work with the Congress to complete the mandates, but we also
need to be in a position to address any emerging risk as it
does appear.
Mr. Olson. So it sounds like the 2011 mandates are pressure
points. Any other pressure points you are concerned about going
forward with keeping Congress and the public informed, more
personnel, just whatever? I mean how can we make sure you do
your job and the people back home know that this is safe?
Ms. Dominguez. Well, I thank you for the investment that
has been made by the Congress thus far. We are going to
continue to make sure that we are using those resources wisely.
Part of what we are doing is making sure that we are
structuring the agency for that level of success as well. And
some of the investment is to actually make sure that we are
creating opportunities inside the agency to be more forward
looking, proactive, data-driven, and improve our economic
analysis and data analysis so that our rulemaking is as strong
as it possibly can be and meet the requirements.
Mr. Olson. And one final question. This is on Section 6 of
the discussion draft that requires PHMSA to conduct timely
post-inspection briefings with operators of pipelines. If there
is a safety hazard, the operator needs to know so they can fix
it immediately. Would PHMSA have an issue complying with this
section going forward to any issues with PHMSA?
Ms. Dominguez. I am terribly sorry, sir. Can you repeat the
question, please?
Mr. Olson. Yes, ma'am. Section 6 of the discussion draft
requires PHMSA to conduct timely post-inspection briefings of
the operators of pipelines. If there is a safety hazard that
the operator needs to know so they can fix it immediately, how
does that knowledge get to the operator? That is what I am
saying. Can you take that mandate? Can you roll with that or do
you need more help or something because these people need to
have that information if they don't have it.
Ms. Dominguez. So we take our inspection process very
seriously. And one of the things that is presently part of our
requirement for all inspectors is to make sure that they
conduct an exit interview in a timely way. Right now, it is a
30-day window for inspectors to complete their exit interview
process. Moving forward, oftentimes it does take more time to
develop any sort of enforcement requirements, whether that be a
notice of proposed violation or other compliance measures that
might be needed. So it is a very thoughtful process taking in
all the data, assessing it, making sure. But I do appreciate
the need to communicate with the operator and we continue to do
that.
So I will say that meeting that 30-day window of our
initial findings is something that we are looking to do more
consistently across the board, but it is a requirement right
now within PHMSA. And then moving forward, as we develop those
recommendations and any kind of violation orders or anything
else, we do take those very seriously and they are a very
thoughtful process.
Mr. Olson. Thank you very much. I am out of time. I yield
back.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. At this time, I
recognize the gentleman from--I was going to say New Jersey,
but I will say California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the chairman. We are a long way from
New Jersey. But we have had three high-profile failures in
California over the last several years, so my first question,
Administrator Dominguez, is do you feel that the states should
have the option of requiring measures like shut-off valves,
pressure monitors, testing of down-hole devices, if the federal
regulators fail to do so?
Ms. Dominguez. Thank you for the question. The way the
process works right now and what Congress has mandated is that
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
PHMSA, sets the minimum federal requirements across the board
for all the states. The states are then allowed to go above and
beyond those requirements and any given state can choose to do
so regardless of what the requirement is.
Mr. McNerney. So your requirements should be seen as
floors, not ceilings?
Ms. Dominguez. Correct.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Will the draft legislation help
PHMSA prevent these and other failures, so the legislation that
we are talking about, or are there holes in the legislation
that you think need to be filled in?
Ms. Dominguez. Our requirements look to create what we
believe to be the safety measure that needs to be put in place.
And again, if states choose to do more and put in place more
stringent requirements they are able to do so.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I mean the current legislation we are
talking about today----
Ms. Dominguez. Yes.
Mr. McNerney. Are there things that you think should be
added or subtracted from that that you would like to discuss?
Ms. Dominguez. We have put forward a series of principles
that I think address any additional requirements. We are
looking in particular at other ways that we can enhance our
enforcement capabilities.
Mr. McNerney. So you don't want to advise us here today?
Ms. Dominguez. The one thing that will say that is in my
testimony is to look for additional opportunities to level
emergency order authority, an ability that other federal
agencies have and actually our hazardous material program has
which is also under PHMSA's authority.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Let us talk about smart pigs
versus direct assessment. My understanding is that if smart
pigs could have been used in one of the high-profile failures
in California, it would have prevented that, but they weren't
able to be used because the pipelines were so old. Is that a
common problem that smart pigs can't be used throughout the
country because of aging pipelines?
Ms. Dominguez. We do have an aging infrastructure system in
this country and one of the things that we have looked to
address across the board is really encouraging. We have done a
call to action over the course of the last 5 years in
encouraging states. About 37 states have actually addressed
this by looking to incent and providing opportunities to
replace aging pipes around the country. That said, there is
still more work to be done and how to pay for that is a
difficult proposition.
We are working directly with states and the industry to
continue to encourage that replacement of pipe and as you look
at different opportunities on the inspection process,
regardless of the tool that you use, you need to make sure that
you use the right tool to address the pipe that you are
actually trying to assess so that it not only protects the
integrity of the pipe, but you actually get the analysis that
you are looking for.
Mr. McNerney. Is there any technology on the horizon that
will improve that capability?
Ms. Dominguez. We are constantly looking to invest in
research and development. It is a big part of our program, R&D,
to look to identify emerging technologies. The research that
PHMSA has done to date is to identify 26 new technologies
including sonar-related pigging capabilities. So it is a good
investment.
Mr. McNerney. Well, let us talk about substandard steel. Is
this is an on-going problem or has that been resolved and new
pipelines that go into use are up to standard steel?
Ms. Dominguez. I believe that PHMSA has addressed
substandard steel in a variety of advisory bulletins and other
things for the operators that have substandard steel to replace
it.
Mr. McNerney. Do you believe that the industry consensus
standards often reflect the best practices or do they reflect
something a little less capable than the best practices?
Ms. Dominguez. Consensus standards are a very good way to
actually identify opportunities to work together both with
states, the Federal Government, and the operators, to develop a
set of requirements that the industry can then apply, both by
executive order and by congressional action. Adoption of
consensus standards is a way forward in lieu of rulemaking.
That said, rulemaking in and of itself provides a very strong
basis for actually implementing the safety measures.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I haven't run out of
questions, but I have run out of time.
Mr. Whitfield. Yes, you have. Thank you. At this time, I
will recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Latta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Administrator,
thanks very much for being here today.
The recently proposed rulemaking addresses hazardous liquid
pipeline shows some incremental progress to address safety.
However, there are overdue regulations and I think you said
that of the 42 you have addressed 26 and we have 16 to go. But
when you are looking at some of these overdue regulations
relating to leak detection and emergency shutoff valves,
integrity management of natural gas pipelines, public education
and awareness efforts, and accident and incident notification,
do you know when we can expect some of these rules to be
published?
Ms. Dominguez. Well, thank you for the question. We have
addressed two major rulemakings, well, four in the last 6
months. But we are looking at--we published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for hazardous liquids last October. It was
a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that went out. We are working
to finalize that rule right now. We collected comments. Our
advisory committee met and we are working to finalize that
rule. We hope to have it out this year.
As I noted, we have received confirmation that the Office
of Management and Budget has completed its review of our gas
transmission line as of this morning and we will be looking to
publish that as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking over the course
of the next couple of weeks. That will be available publicly
and then we will work to complete that rule as well.
Mr. Latta. OK, so that timeline you say is going to be in
the next, what, 3 weeks on the last one you said?
Ms. Dominguez. On gas transmission?
Mr. Latta. Right.
Ms. Dominguez. As soon as we are able to, we will publish
it, so hopefully some time, no later than the next 2 weeks.
Mr. Latta. So just in the meantime though will PHMSA also
commit to sharing a time line or the schedule for that
completion then? So you are going to have that out? Is that
correct?
Ms. Dominguez. Is that a question for the gas transmission
rule
Mr. Latta. I beg your pardon?
Ms. Dominguez. I am sorry, can you repeat the question?
Mr. Latta. That you will commit to sharing that time line,
if it is 3 weeks for the one, but for the others, will you
commit to a timeline in getting that out?
Ms. Dominguez. Yes. And actually, we do publish on our Web
site the status of all of the requirements that are available
and we update it regularly.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. And what, if anything, has PHMSA done
since creating the 811 Dial Before You Dig program to
incorporate new technologies or best practices to improve
communication between the stakeholders for receipt of an
excavation notification until the successful completion of the
excavation as recommended by PHMSA's nine elements of effective
damage prevention programs?
Ms. Dominguez. Damage prevention is one of the leading
causes of serious death and injury related to--it is one of the
leading causes of pipeline incidents. And so we have invested
an enormous amount of time and energy and resources to making
sure that we are not only partnering with the states and the
operators, but we are also working with common ground alliance
to make sure that there is awareness across the board of these
risks and making sure there are one-call centers available in
states.
There are some states that have not adopted one-call
provisions. We are working with them right now. 811, it is
proven the metrics are there, that if you actually call before
you dig the risk is almost eliminated of excavation damage. So
there is huge value in making sure that those excavation rules
are abided by and adopted.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. And finally, with my last minute
here, how do pipeline operators use the in-line inspection or
so-called smart pig technology to find problems in their
pipelines?
And then also, how accurate is the smart pig technology of
finding cracks and other potential issues with the pipeline?
Ms. Dominguez. So as part of our requirements, we look to
make sure that the integrity of any particular pipeline is
assessed and we put the onus on the operators to actually
assess their own pipelines. And we set the requirements for
what they need to look at, how they need to look at it,
etcetera, and interpret that data. And then we go and inspect
to make sure that they are actually complying with the
requirements that we put forward.
The in-line inspection tools that are available are
constantly advancing. And as we look to advance that
technology, we will have more data that is available to
actually understand the exact operation of any given pipeline,
assess it, and make sure that the operator is actually doing
what they need to do to improve and enhance safety.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, it looks like my
time has expired. I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the
chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Capps, for
5 minutes.
Ms. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you again,
Administrator Dominguez, and your team for visiting the Gaviota
Coast in my district and for appearing here today.
As you may know, I sent a letter to your office yesterday
with many of the questions that continue to arise in the
aftermath of the Plains oil spill and I ask unanimous consent
to enter that letter into the records here which I have done.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Ms. Capps. But today, I will try to narrow my questioning
to a few of the still-pressing issues as the central coast of
California recovers from the Plains spill with the goal that
the answers will help make the legislation before us today as
strong as possible
As I said, the safety of our nation's pipeline
infrastructure is critically important to protect public health
and the environment and our local economies. I have several
questions for you and so the briefer you can be in replying
today, but longer answers could be submitted if you wish.
You mentioned in your testimony, Administrator, that PHMSA
is working to tailor inspection requirements to the risk
profile of the pipeline operator. In the preliminary findings
regarding the Plains spill last May, past in-line inspection
surveys used to assess the condition of the pipeline showed an
increasing number of anomalies between surveys. All the while,
Plains opted to decrease the inspection intervals between
surveys voluntarily. Does PHMSA currently have the authority to
mandate increased frequency of inspections for individual
pipelines?
And other than the prescribed frequency for pipelines
within the high-consequence areas, are there any established
triggers that impact required frequency? For example, would a
history of increasing anomalies discovered during sequential
inspections, as was the case with this pipeline, would this
automatically trigger a requirement for more frequent
inspections? I am sorry, that is a mouthful.
Ms. Dominguez. We do have the authority necessary to look
at the requirements for frequency of assessing any pipeline.
And that is what we do. What we need to look at in particular
with the Plains accident is to understand and we are looking at
this as part of our final investigative report. As you know,
first and foremost, thank you again for the opportunity to be
in Santa Barbara with you and release our preliminary factual
report----
Ms. Capps. Right.
Ms. Dominguez [continuing]. Which identified a number of
these issues and the facts surrounding the Plains case. That
said, we are still conducting the investigation. As a result of
that, if there is additional corrective actions that need to be
taken, including anything having to do with an inspection
capability, we will certainly look at that as part of our
recommendation.
Ms. Capps. OK, I hope this will be something that the
proposed emergency order that you described would be used for,
but I am going to turn now to the second question that I have.
The draft legislation would mandate that all response plans
include procedures and a list of resources for responding to
worst-case scenarios. Here is my question. How frequently are
pipeline operators required to update response plans? Are
operators required to provide interim confirmation that a plan
is up to date between reviews? And how does PHMSA ensure that
plans are up to date? Again, that is a lot to ask.
Ms. Dominguez. Thank you for the question. We review
facility response plans for completeness and accuracy. If
anything changes, the operator needs to send it back to us. We
look at it again. We want to make sure that the operator has
actually considered all the risks and resources that are
available in accordance with our federal regulations. If they
are not complete, we send them back to the operator and they
must update them. And that is the procedure that we presently
use with Facility Response Plans.
Ms. Capps. Thank you. I have one final question which,
again I am running short on time, but given the tremendous
damage that can be done to coastal areas, wherever they are,
Great Lakes, the East Coast, West Coast, are these coastal
areas that act as the transition from the land to the ocean--
which is where the spill happened on our Gaviota coastline, the
pipeline ran along the inland and found a culvert and ended up
despoiling the ocean beneath it. Would it make sense to also
increase the frequency of inspections to include these high-
consequence areas?
Can you tell me how many pipelines or is there a way to get
that on the record, how many pipelines actually exist in these
coastal areas?
Ms. Dominguez. I would have to get back to you for the
record on the mileage with regard to pipelines along a coastal
area. But I will tell you that our rulemaking is such that for
hazardous liquids, we look to make sure that any area that we
are providing the safest requirements possible for hazardous
liquids and our gas transmission rule that we are looking at
right now, we are looking to expand the definition of a high-
consequence area. So we will also expand that coverage as part
of the gas transmission rule.
Ms. Capps. I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentlelady yields back. At this time I
recognize the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5
minutes.
Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Dominguez, since the law was passed in 2011, 5 years
ago, everything I have read has indicated that the rate of
accidents, ruptures, leaks, explosions, has not decreased. Do
you have something to the contrary over the last 5 years of
whether we are making progress?
Ms. Dominguez. I believe that safety is a process of
continuous----
Mr. McKinley. Can you speak a little closer? I am very hard
of hearing.
Ms. Dominguez. Sure. I believe that safety is a process of
continuous improvement. So as we have transitioned in this
country to a very robust energy environment, it has been a very
dynamic energy environment certainly the last decade, we are
looking to make sure that all of our safety requirements are
as----
Mr. McKinley. I know that. I understand. It is why you got
this job, apparently. You didn't have a lot of background in
hazardous material, but you did have a good background in
communicative and political skills. So I am just trying to ask
a direct question.
Everything I have read is that the rate of accidents are
not decreasing and in many respects actually increasing since
pipeline safety went into effect. So I know your mission. You
want to achieve that, but from what we have read--that is why I
was asking you. Do you have evidence that ever since the
pipeline safety that it has been an effective tool that you
have actually been able to reduce it? Because coming from where
we are in eastern Ohio, western Pennsylvania and all of West
Virginia, we have a rush of pipelines, and as I said last year
to your predecessor, virtually every month there is an
accident, a flame, some rupture, some leak, something happening
that we weren't experiencing before. So I am trying to find a
way to get some sense of confidence for the American public
that our pipeline program is worth the investment and the time
to do that.
So again, let me try it again with you. Do you have
evidence that our pipeline accident rates are decreasing or
stay status quo?
Ms. Dominguez. I would say that you should have every
confidence that not only is PHMSA robustly addressing our
mission on pipeline safety, that we have a level of dedication
to make sure that that actually takes place and that the
accidents that we are looking at we are learning from and
making sure that we have--whether it is Santa Barbara----
Mr. McKinley. Can you get back to me then? I am sorry if I
am putting you on the spot. You are trying to play politics. I
don't want to play. I just wanted some facts. Are we increasing
or decreasing? I would appreciate that.
The other is the lack of not having completed--I think last
year we had 16 or 17 weren't completed, and then your statement
you said 16 aren't completed. I am missing something. Why
aren't they finished? If there was a law passed, is this part
of the administration to say we are just not going to do it? We
are not going to enforce the law?
Ms. Dominguez. So in the last 6 months, we have moved
forward on four and now five of the requirements from the 2011
Act. So we are moving as aggressively as we possibly can. It
has been a priority for the agency to address these 2011
mandates and I can tell you that our focus is very laser-like
on making sure that these requirements are met.
That said, the rulemaking process is one that is intended
to be thoughtful and methodical and it takes time. So I am not
using that as----
Mr. McKinley. Well, you had 5 years to do that. I would
think if you were industry, I think you probably would have
been fined by now. If you were an industry and violated the
law. So I will be curious to see what the consequences are in
finishing. I think your answer earlier was you were going to
get back to us with some of the answers or what the deadline
might be, your time line in getting those. I would sure like to
see that as well.
But the bottom line here is we have so much pipeline being
constructed in West Virginia for the Marcellus and the Utica,
that if we took a poll right now I am afraid a lot of the
residents would turn on the pipeline because they see so many
problems associated with it. So I am trying to get the
confidence. If we are going to be energy independent and we are
going to be able to tap into this for our energy sources in the
future, they have got to have confidence with that farmer, if
there is going to be a 42-inch pipeline across his field, that
he doesn't have to worry about it. And right now, I don't think
the American public has confidence in government now as giving
us that assurance. So I really hope that you can finish your
work that you were charged to do 5 years ago and get this thing
at a point we can see a marked decrease in the amount of
accidents across this country.
Ms. Dominguez. Thank you. And I will tell you that not only
are we working diligently to complete the mandates that
Congress has provided, but we are also looking to enhance our
safety performance by employing safety management systems which
will raise the bar not only for PHMSA, but more importantly for
the industries that we regulate to make sure that we are
identifying and addressing all of the emerging risk, analyzing
data, and truly informing that risk model moving forward. So
safety management systems are really that next level of
improvement on safety. And that is something that I am
personally committed to, the agency is personally committed to,
and I know we are working aggressively with all involved to get
there.
Mr. McKinley. My time has expired.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time has expired. At this
time I will recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
Doyle, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to
thank you for holding this hearing today and to thank our
witnesses for testifying.
I am glad we are considering this important reauthorization
legislation and I think the discussion draft under
consideration represents a good first step in the process.
Administrator Dominguez, I am concerned that PHMSA is still
far from completing mandates instituted under the Pipeline
Safety Act of 2011. Overdue regulations include those related
to leak detection and emergency shutoff valves, as well as
public education and awareness efforts.
What are the biggest challenges facing you right now in
getting these completed?
Ms. Dominguez. We have been working through a very diligent
and thoughtful rulemaking process and we have completed two, I
think, of the most significant, although they are all
significant requirements in the last 6 months alone. The first
one was on the hazardous liquid rule which was published in
October of last year.
The one that I was addressing today which OMB has announced
that they have completed their review and will be looking, we,
PHMSA, will be looking to publish that over the course of the
next 2 weeks is on gas transmission. It is a very comprehensive
rule addressing a number of areas with regard to integrity
management of gas transmission and really looking at
strengthening both hazardous liquid and gas transmission rules.
Mr. Doyle. So what assistance can our committee provide to
ensure that this is done as quickly and responsibly as
possible? How can we be of assistance to you in that regard?
Ms. Dominguez. Well, I appreciate that Congress has
invested in PHMSA. We have received, as I mentioned, 109 new
positions. Most of those positions have gone to the field.
Those are inspectors. We are training them and getting them up
to speed as quickly as possible. And we are also using the
remaining funds to strengthen our capabilities. As I mentioned,
one of the things that we are engaged in is organizing the
agency itself to be more data driven, more innovative, more
predictive. And one of the things we are doing is looking at
enhancing our data and analytics capabilities which will, in
turn, help us in our rulemaking by collecting data and
informing our regulations in a more productive way moving
forward.
Mr. Doyle. I want to also ask you about emergency order
authority and authority other administrators enjoy. Can you
describe in greater detail potential events that could justify
the use of such authority and how having such an authority
would be beneficial in those circumstances?
Ms. Dominguez. Thank you for the question. You are correct.
Even within PHMSA's own program, we are responsible for both
hazardous materials and pipeline operation, pipeline safety.
And emergency order authority, we have it on our hazardous
materials program side. We are seeking it on the pipeline
safety side.
An example of where we might use it would be--there have
been in the past defective fittings for pipelines that have
been found. If we were able to have emergency order authority
we would be able to ask that directly that operators address
those defective fittings. Pre-1970s pipe and anything that was
low-grade steel that needed to be addressed, that has in the
past been found to be a problem. That is the type of work that
we would do, something that would need to be addressed on a
national basis. That would be the circumstance for an emergency
authority.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. I am also interested in LNG exports
and certainly share your support for strong safety standards in
this area. Are there particular areas within this subject that
you think require additional direction from our committee or
the administration?
Ms. Dominguez. We have been working to actually look to
see. The LNG market has really transformed in this country over
the course of the last 10 years alone. As you know, the United
States has gone from importing LNG to now being a major
exporter. I was just down in Louisiana a few weeks ago at the
Cheniere facility which is now online and exporting LNG on a
global basis.
So as we move forward, we have got a very changing energy
market and a very changing dynamic. And we have the authority
to actually establish and enforce the safety standards for
onshore LNG facilities, so while we look at other methods of
transporting LNG, that is something that PHMSA is aggressively
looking at right now, making sure that we are keeping pace with
innovation and technology for other forms of transportation of
LNG.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the
chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
thank you, Administrator Dominguez, for joining us today.
Section 11 requires that PHMSA issue new regulations for
underground natural gas storage facilities. And the recent
incident at an underground natural gas storage facility in
California certainly highlights the importance of this
requirement. So does PHMSA support this provision in Section
11?
Ms. Dominguez. I don't have the exact language in front of
me. But I believe that----
Mr. Johnson. But you know that it requires you guys to
issue regulations. So do you support that?
Ms. Dominguez. I will tell you that we have the authority
right now to regulate the underground storage of natural gas.
We do not presently have in place regulations that would
address anything below the surface. So that would be something
that we would work on.
Mr. Johnson. Do you think it is important for states to
retain a cooperative role in overseeing these facilities?
Ms. Dominguez. We have been working cooperatively with the
states for many years.
Mr. Johnson. No, but do you think it is important that they
retain that, that cooperative relationship?
Ms. Dominguez. Absolutely. I think that what we need to do
is work cooperatively across the board. While PHMSA sets the
minimum federal standards, the states are always able to exceed
those standards and should they want to put in place more
additional requirements, they would be able to do so.
Mr. Johnson. Section 16 of the discussion draft would
reauthorize PHMSA's pipeline safety and grant programs and
later today, we will hear from the states who would like to see
an increase in state grants. The states do the bulk of the
inspection work and the pipeline statute allows them to be
reimbursed up to 80 percent by the Federal Government. Did the
states receive the full 80 percent reimbursement in 2014?
Ms. Dominguez. PHMSA, I will first and foremost tell you
that we very much value our partnership with the states. And as
you have stated, part of the money, a good portion of the
monies that Congress provides us, we in turn grant to the
states for their work----
Mr. Johnson. We know. That is what I just said. So my
question to you is did they receive the full 80 percent
reimbursement in 2014?
Ms. Dominguez. The way that the process is done is----
Mr. Johnson. Did they receive it? That is a simple
question. Did they receive it?
Ms. Dominguez. The auditing is that so long as they provide
the records, we reimburse them for the requirement----
Mr. Johnson. That is history. That is part of your records.
Did they receive the full 80 percent?
Ms. Dominguez. I will have to go back to look and check the
actual----
Mr. Johnson. Well, I can tell you the answer, but would you
get it and get it back to this committee, please?
Ms. Dominguez. I would be happy to.
Mr. Johnson. The answer is no, they did not. It was only 75
percent and can you give us any idea why they did not?
Ms. Dominguez. Again, as part of our process what we look
for is confirmation of--we sent out a series of requirements
for the states. They have to then provide their expenditures
and then we reimburse them.
Mr. Johnson. Would PHMSA support a relative increase in
funds for state grants? You have acknowledged that the states
do the bulk of the work, would you support an increase, a
relative increase in those funds for state grants?
Ms. Dominguez. I think the balance that we have right now,
we are always looking to enhance safety, if that was a measure.
The balance that we have now between the state and federal
relationship is a good balance and if there were more funds
available for PHMSA to help execute its state grant program, we
would be happy to consider that.
Mr. Johnson. I would think that balance would be improved
if the states got the full reimbursement for their 80 percent
though. Would you agree with that?
Ms. Dominguez. Again, I want to be clear. Because part of
the measure here is that there is transparency in the
expenditures and so while it may be 80 percent or 75 percent
reimbursement, I will check and get back to you for the record.
That is something that is actually reviewed very seriously as
we reimburse states for their expenditures.
Mr. Johnson. OK, all right. Very quickly, PHMSA, as you
know, I believe, should encourage performance based risk
management regulations whenever possible because this data-
drive approach to safety offers the greatest flexibility
allowing pipeline operators to adapt their programs and plans
to provide an adequate margin of safety.
So it has been reported that some rules under consideration
by PHMSA are unable to pass the cost benefit analysis. If this
is the case, why is PHMSA having difficulty incorporating cost
into a risk-based regulation?
Ms. Dominguez. PHMSA's pipeline safety program, in order to
regulate, we have a requirement that Congress provided that our
benefits have to exceed our costs. So our rulemakings contain
that requirement across the board.
Mr. Johnson. OK, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. The chair now recognizes Mr. Loebsack of
Iowa for 5 minutes.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for being
here, Administrator Dominguez, and taking the time to testify.
This has been a pretty enlightening hearing for me. We have 99
counties in Iowa and we have got pipelines everywhere just like
everyone up here and safety, obviously, is the biggest concern.
As I read your testimony and as I hear your responses and
what folks are saying here as well, and again, I am just trying
to learn what you folks do exactly, what your oversight role is
and all the rest.
Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that a lot of what
you do is after the fact, after pipelines have been put in the
ground, after they have been built. Is that the case?
Ms. Dominguez. Actually, we have a great deal of
responsibility on the front end.
Mr. Loebsack. Can you talk about that a little bit?
Ms. Dominguez. Sure.
Mr. Loebsack. Because that is really what I am more
interested in than anything.
Ms. Dominguez. So part of our requirements for pipeline
safety include requirements around new construction for
pipeline. So our requirements look at making sure that
operators fully evaluate any newly constructed pipelines that
go in to check on any issues that could affect a pipe's ability
to operate safely once it is actually in operation. So our
inspectors go out. They look at welding. They look at any kind
of coating. And especially for new construction, I can tell you
that we have applied about 20 to 25 percent of our resources in
inspections to actually go out and look at new pipe that is
being----
Mr. Loebsack. If I can ask, I mean again, that is kind of
after the fact, right? That is once the pipes are already
there.
What about, for example, when states are considering new
pipelines? What kind of a role do you folks play in that whole
process? A utilities board, for example, is looking at putting
the possibility of putting a new pipeline in, might run across
the state, might be part of the state. What role do you play at
that point in that process, if any?
Ms. Dominguez. PHMSA is not directly responsible for any of
the siting issues that occur, so if it is an intrastate
pipeline, the state would take that. If it is an interstate gas
pipeline, FERC would take that responsibility. That said, we
always work in close coordination and we have been working with
the State of Iowa, as you have looked to educate, talk about
the safety issues around pipelines. We have tried to work very
cooperatively. I think we have done some good work with the
State of Iowa as you look to expand your pipeline network.
Mr. Loebsack. Who determines the integrity of these
pipelines before a utilities board, for example, actually makes
a decision as to whether the pipeline is going to be cited or
not? Are those federal guidelines? Are those state guidelines?
What are those guidelines, for example?
Ms. Dominguez. The actual integrity of the pipeline and its
operations is something that PHMSA takes on directly.
Mr. Loebsack. And so the State of Iowa, for example, would
know what those specifics are when that pipeline before it goes
into the ground, what those specifics ought to be. Is that
correct?
Ms. Dominguez. The requirements for an operation of a
pipeline and new construction criteria are standards that PHMSA
sets.
Mr. Loebsack. Right, and the integrity of the pipeline
itself, if you will.
Ms. Dominguez. Yes, we monitor the integrity of the
pipeline itself. We put the onus of that operation through our
integrity assessment requirements and integrity management
practices that we have. We put that burden directly on the
pipeline operator. The pipeline operator then has to collect
data and we go about inspecting that and then if there is any
anomalies or anything that we find, we take enforcement action
against that.
Mr. Loebsack. But all that information is known to a
utilities board prior to their making a decision as to whether
they are going to site a pipeline or not?
Ms. Dominguez. We provide a lot of educational material to
NARUC and a number of the public utilities commissions around
the country.
Mr. Loebsack. Will the proposed legislation here have any
effect whatsoever on that--on those particulars and on that
process?
Ms. Dominguez. I would have to look at the legislation and
respond back to you. I am not familiar with the particular
section of the proposed legislation.
Mr. Loebsack. I just want to make sure that not only the
utilities board in any particular state, but the public who are
involved in the process have all that information as well
because there are public hearings, as you know, whenever there
is a siting.
Ms. Dominguez. We have a great deal of material. PHMSA has
a great deal of material on our Web site that talks about all
of the many aspects that we actually cover with regard to new
construction of pipeline, assessment, and enforcement actions.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you,
Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the
chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Mullin, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this meeting.
Ma'am, we do appreciate you being here. I know you are
fairly new and you are trying to get your head wrapped around
it. And I commend you for what you are trying to do.
Unfortunately, what we have seen as PHMSA has got a lot of
concerns from Congress right now and the way that you are
spending money and the grant programs that they are going to.
And so that is one of the questions I have.
To the Technical Assistance Grants program run by your
agency, it seems to be a tremendous help providing additional
training and education on training pipeline safety issues.
Unfortunately, I am increasingly concerned that some of these
taxpayer dollars are being awarded to groups that publicly
oppose new pipeline infrastructure which was not the intent of
Congress. With Congress looking to reauthorize the program, can
you assure us that you will provide the oversight necessary to
ensure these grants are being executed as Congress intended?
Ms. Dominguez. The Technical Assistance Grants that we have
provided to states, I believe are valuable programs for
education for emergency responders as well as the communities
around the country. PHMSA indeed has very strong internal
controls, to answer your question, about how these grant
applications are not only reviewed, but also how they are
awarded and administered. And so that would continue moving
forward.
Mr. Mullin. Specifically, directing though the issue, how
are these grants getting into the hands of people that are
opposing it? If it is supposed to go for training, how is it
going to people that oppose the pipelines? That has nothing to
do with training. That has to do with people that are
environmentalists, that they don't want the infrastructure
built to begin with and they are spending money to oppose the
pipelines to begin with. It has already been happening, so how
can you assure us it is not going to continue to happen? The
oversight, what steps has your agency taken since you have been
at the helm since August?
Ms. Dominguez. So as move forward on Technical Assistance
Grants, we would look to make sure that indeed all of those
requirements, whether it is review----
Mr. Mullin. What are those requirements?
Ms. Dominguez. There is a series of requirements that each
applicant has to meet before----
Mr. Mullin. Specifically, do you know what those
requirements are?
Ms. Dominguez. I don't have them with me, but I would be
happy to provide them to you.
Mr. Mullin. Are those the same ones that have been in
place? Or have they been changed since you been there?
Ms. Dominguez. They are the same that have been in place--
--
Mr. Mullin. So no changes have been made to assure these
programs can be made. What we are trying to do here, ma'am, is
we want to make sure that the tax dollars are being used for
their intended purpose. And if there has been no changes made,
we already know that these technical grants that went to
organizations that don't support pipelines period, they oppose
them. These are for training to provide safety for those that
are installing the pipelines and maintaining the pipelines, not
for opposition groups. So if you haven't made any changes to
it, then you can't assure us that it is not going to continue
to be spent in the wrong way.
Ms. Dominguez. I would be happy to look and do an
assessment of the recipients of the Technical Assistance Grants
to see where some of the actual recipients, what they have done
with the money, but I can tell you that we do that as part of
an annual process and review of our grants in general.
Mr. Mullin. But even by saying that you did it annually,
there has been no changes. So does that happen annually then?
Have you not done it since you have been there?
Ms. Dominguez. Not since I have been there, but we are
coming up on a review of the programs right now, so I will
certainly take a look at it.
Mr. Mullin. Could you please do me a favor? When you do
look at it, could you get back to either this committee or to
my office and let us know what changes are going to be made?
Because I can tell you that if it is going to continue the way
that it is going, then there is no way I am going to be able to
support reauthorization.
Our number one goal is to have the intent of what Congress
had for the tax dollars to be spent that way. And when we have
opposing groups that are provided with grants that are supposed
to be for safety and technical training and they are using it
to oppose the projects to begin with, it seems like that is a
waste of taxpayer dollars. Would you agree?
Ms. Dominguez. I am not aware of a direct instance where a
group has come into those dollars, federal dollars, but I will
certainly look----
Mr. Mullin. We will be happy to provide you with a list of
those that have received those grants.
Now to switch real quick to my last question, I want to
talk about states. What is the relationship between the states
and PHMSA right now as far as with pipeline safety and training
and working with the states and not against the states?
Ms. Dominguez. I think we have a very good working
relationship with the states across the board. PHMSA is the
federal regulator. The states often across the board have
authority and through a certification process with PHMSA to
conduct inspections within their respective states. We work
cooperatively on that entire process. It is one where we are
constantly exchanging information.
One of the things that we are looking to do in this
reauthorization is make sure that the inspection data that the
states are collecting is something that we can collect at a
federal level as well, to make sure that the data analysis is
as robust as it can be in identifying risk and that is through
our information sharing system.
Mr. Mullin. Thank you and I went over my time. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman, for yielding more time to me. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back his time. The
chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Administrator
Dominguez, welcome. Thank you for your leadership.
As you may know, my district which is in the Capital
District region in Upstate New York, has become a hub for
energy transportation in recent years, seeing a tremendous boom
in crude by rail shipments.
Can you provide an update on the crude by rail spill
response plan rulemaking?
Ms. Dominguez. Thank you for the question, sir. We are
moving that rulemaking very quickly. As you know, the Congress
passed the FAST Act. It made some changes to some of the
provisions. We have updated the rulemaking to reflect those
changes that the Congress passed in the FAST Act and we have
moved that forward through the Department, the rulemaking, and
are working with our colleagues at OMB for a review of that
rule right now.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And I know you cannot comment on the
specifics of that package, but can you explain just what was
under consideration, what is under consideration?
Ms. Dominguez. For the oil spill response?
Mr. Tonko. Yes.
Ms. Dominguez. We are looking at the provisions that were
outlined by the Congress and some of the requirements under the
FAST Act to make sure that all of those provisions are
addressed.
Mr. Tonko. Right. And you mentioned the FAST Act and the
fact that you had to incorporate that into your actions. Are
there new requirements or timelines that you need to take under
consideration, other time lines?
Ms. Dominguez. There are. There are new requirements for
retrofit schedules and other things with regard to tank car top
fittings and other aspects of the redesign that we have now
taken into account based on the FAST Act.
Mr. Tonko. Let me just state that I believe that it is
critical for the public and the emergency responders' safety
that they have all the information, the resources, and
equipment in place to respond to an incident quickly and
effectively. And spill plans are an important part of that
effort.
I am encouraged that you are moving forward. I hope that it
is done expeditiously so that we can finish the rule and
provide those elements to the individuals and groups that I
just mentioned.
But to bring this back to pipeline safety, the National
Academy of Sciences had a recent study that raised issues with
PHMSA's review of spill response plans. Does PHMSA review, do
their review plans based on completeness? Do they base it on
completeness or is the adequacy of those plans also taken under
consideration?
Ms. Dominguez. PHMSA actually looks very directly as
facility response plans for completeness and accuracy to ensure
that the operators considered all of the risk and the resources
in accordance with our federal regulations.
Mr. Tonko. Does PHMSA make recommendations about those
plans that it feels are inadequate?
Ms. Dominguez. Yes, we do. We comment directly on them. We
send them back to the operators if they are not complete and
require them to address any inconsistencies or any failings
that we find in the response plan. They are obligated to then
update them and resubmit them for review before we approve
them.
Mr. Tonko. And just how does that work in a functional way?
Do they respond to those concerns about inadequacy?
Ms. Dominguez. Yes they do. It is an iterative process.
Mr. Tonko. I didn't hear what you said.
Ms. Dominguez. It is an iterative process, so they are
constantly being updated.
Mr. Tonko. OK.
Ms. Dominguez. Where they are constantly being updated.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. And is PHMSA's decision not
to regularly conduct two-stage reviews, one for completeness,
one for adequacy for spill plans an issue of lack of agency
resources or is it a lack of legal authority?
Ms. Dominguez. As I stated, we do look for both
completeness and accuracy for facility response plans.
Mr. Tonko. OK, and has PHMSA made any progress in
instituting the NTSB's recommendations on this issue?
Ms. Dominguez. I believe that our requirements now meet the
NTSB requirements, but I will check and make sure and respond
directly to you.
Mr. Tonko. OK. And with an issue of resources, is there an
adequate amount of resources to provide for an expeditious
response to these efforts that come before the PHMSA group or
are there areas of resource activity that could be
strengthening your response?
Ms. Dominguez. We have worked very diligently over the
course of the last couple of years to make sure that all of the
facility response plans that PHMSA reviews are up to date and
complete. And we have put an enormous amount of resources in
that process to make sure that that has occurred. Moving
forward, if there are additional areas for investment, we will
be sure to circle back with you. Thank you.
Mr. Tonko. I would appreciate that. And with that, Mr.
Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. This time the
chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hudson,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
being here with us today. I want to follow up on the line of
questioning from my colleague, Mr. Mullin, talking about--and I
was pleased to hear you talk about the importance of the
cooperation with states, but my question is if states are so
vital to PHMSA's pipeline safety program, why did PHMSA
announce that it intended to rescind existing state-interstate
agreements and disallow additional states to become interstate
agents?
Ms. Dominguez. So I appreciate your question. One of the
things that we have continued to work on is exactly how we
would continue to make sure that not only are we working as
cooperatively as possible, I had a chance, actually, one of the
first meetings that I did was go and meet with the National
Association of State Pipeline Safety Representatives. These are
the folks in every single state that represents the state
inspection process and are our partners across the board. And
that group is a very dedicated group of professionals looking
to undertake pipeline safety at a very, very local level and we
greatly appreciate our partnership with them.
That said, we want to make sure that everything that we
look at, that we use the money that Congress has given us to
make sure that if there is a state that has been in trouble,
that we are using the dollars to make sure that we are
investing in that state to help rehabilitate them. The last
thing we want to do is look to decertify a state for their
state program.
So any monies that are given to us for investment in a
state would literally be used to help rehabilitate a state and
make sure that we are not in a position of revoking their
authority. That would be the last measure that we would look to
take. Rather, we would look to invest in them and help them
strengthen their program first and foremost.
Mr. Hudson. So this announcement of the intention of
rescinding existing state-interstate agreements is only focused
on states where there is a problem? Is that what you are
saying?
Ms. Dominguez. I am not aware of an announcement that PHMSA
has made with regard to decertifying states. We would, again,
our first action would be to work directly with the states and
look to make sure that we enhance their capability to perform
their program.
Mr. Hudson. OK, well, let me switch gears and talk about
gathering lines for a second. Section 21 of the 2011 law
directed PHMSA to review and report to Congress on existing
federal and state regulations for all gathering lines. With
this report, which was submitted more than a year late, PHMSA
stated that it is considering the need to propose additional
regulations to ensure the safety of natural gas and hazardous
liquid gathering lines.
Is PHMSA reviewing the need to propose changes to existing
exemptions from federal regulation for gathering lines? If so,
when will this review conclude?
Ms. Dominguez. We are in the process of looking at that
right now. Part of the work that we have done with our gas
transmission rule includes gathering lines. And so as we look
to publish the requirements in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
for our gas transmission rule, it will include gathering lines.
Mr. Hudson. OK. And when do you expect that to conclude?
Ms. Dominguez. We received noticed this morning that OMB is
concluding their review and we hope to publish the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for gas transmission sometime in the next 2
weeks.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you. Switching gears one more time here
before I run out of time, the issue of Maximum Allowable
Operating Pressure. Section 23 of the 2011 law directed PHMSA
to require each pipeline owner or operator to verify that the
records accurately reflect the physical and operational
characteristics of the pipeline and to confirm the established
Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure of the pipelines.
Inadequate records for older pipelines have been a long-
standing concern. The statutory deadline was July 3, 2013. When
can we expect PHMSA to finalize the regulation addressing this
issue?
Ms. Dominguez. For Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure, a
good portion of that is covered in the two regulations that I
mentioned earlier, hazardous liquid rule and our gas
transmission rule. So the hazardous liquid rule is covered, a
portion of that. But the gas transmission rule also covers how
we would best address that for gas.
Mr. Hudson. So that addresses the issue with the older
pipelines where we had insufficient records?
Ms. Dominguez. Correct.
Mr. Hudson. OK. Thank you for that. I am about out of time,
Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. This time the
chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Long, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Doyle kind of hit on
this question earlier, but your agency still needs to fulfill
16 of the 42 mandates from the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act. And in
your testimony you mentioned that ten mandates will be
addressed as part of the current rulemaking activities, but the
remaining six are tied to reports and information collections.
Why are several of these still in the early information
collection phase?
Ms. Dominguez. We are working through those. Right now,
several of these reports are tied to some of the rulemakings
that we are doing. So as we publish the rules, we will be
publishing some of the reports. Moving forward, we are still
doing some information collection. Technology is advancing and
we still have opportunity to collect some more data to inform
our reports moving forward and that is what we are focused on.
Mr. Long. So tell me again the technology is advancing and
that is slowing down the--I mean technology is advancing all
the time.
Ms. Dominguez. It is. So we are still working on
information collection on several of those fronts. I am happy
to give you the details about exactly the specifics that you
are looking at, but I think that the two remaining information
collection opportunities we have under way and I can give you a
report. It is also on our Web site. But I will be happy to give
you a direct update on it.
Mr. Long. OK, because what I am kind of looking for is how
we can speed up that process and get the information. So
production of liquefied--excuse me, I didn't know I had a frog
in my throat before I started this. Production of liquefied
natural gas has increased significantly, as you know, in the
last few years. How has your agency kept up with the LNG boom
and have you been able to effectively update codes and design
standards to keep up with this boom?
Ms. Dominguez. So we have been looking very directly at
LNG. It is something that, as you noted, has really changed the
landscape of the United States. And one of the things that we
are looking at is how we would update our regulations to make
sure that we are keeping pace with the technology as it moves
forward.
We are updating our regs right now to provide for certainty
in the design in the construction and the operation of small
scale liquefaction facilities moving forward.
Mr. Long. How effectively do you work with FERC as a
coordinating agency for siting and reviewing LNG facilities?
Ms. Dominguez. We have a good working relationship with
FERC and they are directly responsible for a number of the
siting requirements, in particular, for large scale LNG
facilities.
Mr. Long. In your testimony, you mention the important role
states play in inspecting and enforcing both federal and state
regulations. How closely do you work with these states in
developing those regulations?
Ms. Dominguez. We work very closely with the states. The
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is
directly responsible for setting the federal standards and in
turn, states then adopt those standards and are able to go
above and beyond our requirements. And as the states directly
carry out through a certification process with PHMSA, some of
the inspection requirements, we work hand-in-glove with them,
not only to make sure that their state inspectors come to our
training facility, can take advantage of our--and we help
provide funds to make sure that they are able to come and get
trained on the requirements. But then we also work very
directly with them in the execution of their state programs.
Mr. Long. Of the what?
Ms. Dominguez. Their state programs.
Mr. Long. OK, so setting safety standards, things of that
nature?
Ms. Dominguez. Correct.
Mr. Long. OK, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the
chair recognizes Mr. Griffith of Virginia for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do
appreciate you being here today. I apologize. We had a meeting
related to the coal industry and black lung. We had a round
table with Chairman Bobby Scott and another committee was
hosting and I have a district that has produced a lot of coal
over the years, and so that was an important issue as well.
Now along those lines, we have a lot of pipelines being
built now because of what I would see as the EPA's war on coal
and the shutdown of like half of the industry in the last
couple of years. The EPA is moving to regulate emissions of
methane in the oil and gas industry by requiring oil and gas
processing and transmission facilities to find and repair
methane leaks. This was part of a speech given last week by the
EPA director, administrator.
PHMSA has already proposed a leak detection rule and has
worked with the industry to reduce leaks. In fact, I think
overall, methane emissions are down about 13 percent in the
last couple of years through various things that you all are
doing. I have concerns about the EPA imposing new regulations
on pipeline operations that PHMSA already regulates.
Has PHMSA provided any advice or guidance to the EPA in the
development of their strategies and their proposals? Has EPA
solicited any advice from you all? And does PHMSA foresee
working with the EPA in the development of yet new regulations
in this arena?
Because time is short, if you could answer all of that
quick, I would appreciate it.
Ms. Dominguez. I think that one of the issues that we need
to continuously look at in this country is the issue of aging
infrastructure writ large. And one of the by-products of aging
infrastructure is leaks, particularly in natural gas pipelines.
So as we look to invest in replacement of old pipe, that
helps reduce methane emissions, but also across the board helps
with that larger goal. We always look to partner with our
federal----
Mr. Griffith. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Dominguez. Across the board, so would be happy to
continue to do that.
Mr. Griffith. Well, it appears that you all have been doing
a fairly good job, so I hope they don't come in and start
changing a lot of things. I would also have to note that
according to Ms. McCarthy, the administrator of the EPA,
methane is upwards to 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide,
so I am a little concerned about that because they have been
working so hard to eliminate coal, the fossil fuel that is used
in this country of which we have an abundant supply. I wonder
if this is just the opening salvo in a new war on natural gas?
That being said though, we do have a lot of natural gas
pipelines being built. The Mountain Valley Pipeline is coming
through my district. I am very pleased to see that you all
participated in the scoping hearings related to the Mountain
Valley Pipeline. And so I guess I have to ask what role do you
all play in advising or assisting either the pipeline companies
or FERC prior to FERC approval of a new gas pipeline?
Ms. Dominguez. Thank you for the question. We are truly in
an advisory and a support role, both to the states and to FERC
during the siting process. So if there are questions about
safety, we often partner with FERC or the states to make sure
that if citizens have questions during public meetings, et
cetera, we talk through what our requirements are for design,
construction, etcetera, of new pipeline.
Mr. Griffith. I appreciate that. In mountainous crossings,
and my district has got a lot of mountains in it, what are
PHMSA's top concerns and where do you see the greatest
difficulty ensuring the long-term structural safety of
pipelines when they are crossing over and through mountains?
Ms. Dominguez. I would tell you that our requirements are
fairly robust in the new construction criteria. And so
regardless of terrain, there are requirements that look at the
geology of any particular area and that those requirements are
met as new pipe is constructed.
Mr. Griffith. And are there other areas that you believe
that PHMSA and FERC could collaborate to a greater extent to
ensure the safety concerns that a lot of my constituents are
raising and can you get in early in that process as well?
Ms. Dominguez. We, I believe, have been working. I had a
chance to meet with the chairman of FERC, Norman Bay, and we
have been working very collaboratively at a very local level to
make sure that we are addressing citizens' concerns. And
PHMSA's role in all of that is to again articulate what our
safety mission is and how the actual operation of a pipeline
would work once it is in the ground.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. And Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back and that concludes
the questions, except I have one other question before I let
you go. Frequently, we see charts of reportable incidents on
pipeline safety and it seems to be going up. What is the actual
definition of an incident or a significant incident at PHMSA?
Ms. Dominguez. I don't have the actual definition, if it is
published, ready at hand, but I will tell you that any time
there is an impact on people or the environment that impacts
the work that we do as a result of the operation of a pipeline.
So----
Mr. Whitfield. So if a pipeline leaks any amount, is that
an incident that must be reported?
Ms. Dominguez. I will be happy to clarify for the record
exactly what the requirement is for reporting on an actual
incident.
Mr. Whitfield. OK. I would appreciate that because I think
that is important for us to know.
Madam Administrator, thank you very much for taking the
time to be with us today. We appreciate your testimony and look
forward to working with you as we move forward and that
concludes the questions for you.
So at this time I would like to call up the second panel of
witnesses. On the second panel of witnesses we have five
panelists. And rather than introduce all of them right now, I
am just going to introduce them one time and that is when I
recognize them for their testimony.
Our first witness this morning is Mr. Norman Saari who is
the Commissioner for the Michigan Public Service Commission.
And he is testifying on behalf of the National Association of
Regulatory Commissioners. So Mr. Saari, thanks very much for
joining us and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF NORMAN J. SAARI, COMMISSIONER, MICHIGAN PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION (ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS); RON BRADLEY, VICE PRESIDENT
OF GAS OPERATIONS, PECO ENERGY (ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN GAS
ASSOCIATION); ANDREW BLACK, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ASSOCIATION OF
OIL PIPE LINES; DONALD SANTA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INTERSTATE
NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; AND CARL WEIMER, EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR, PIPELINE SAFETY TRUST
STATEMENT OF NORMAN J. SAARI
Mr. Saari. Chairman, ranking member, committee members,
thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I want to
personally thank you for the invitation to share some thoughts
and the commitment from a state regulator's perspective of the
importance of safe and efficient----
Mr. Whitfield. Be sure to just turn that microphone on.
Mr. Saari. I beg your pardon, sir. I want to thank you for
the opportunity to be here today. When Henry Ford rolled his
first car off the assembly line in 1913, it may have traveled
on a roadway that already had natural gas pipeline buried
beneath it. That Ford Model T is likely now in a museum, but
there may be some of the city's original gas pipeline still
intact and still in use. That car was probably taken out of
service because of its reliability and safety. We have a
responsibility to make sure that the pipeline meets up-to-date
reliability in current safety standards or it, too, must be
taken out of service or replaced.
The Michigan Public Service Commission joins with
regulators nationwide to work on programs that ensure safe
operations of the existing natural gas infrastructure on new
projects with a top priority of protecting public health and
safety in an environmentally-conscious manner. We join and
collaborate with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, PHMSA, the U.S. Department of Transportation,
FERC, and other federal agencies to coordinate these programs
between federal interstate pipeline jurisdiction and state
intrastate regulation.
As I have highlighted in my submitted testimony, states
rely upon a working partnership with PHMSA to develop and
coordinate pipeline safety programs. This mutual effort
requires sufficient federal funding needed to achieve the
excellence we seek to administer one-call programs, complete
timely inspections of new and existing natural gas lines,
monitor and regulate gas storage facilities, and promote public
education and awareness.
The Michigan Commission works with its local companies to
regulate programs for gas main construction and replacement and
gas storage field operations and safety upgrades, while finding
the proper balance of what its rate payers can afford to pay.
Meeting the completion targets of replacement over 7,000
miles in Michigan of natural gas mains will require
expenditures over the next decade in the hundreds of millions
of dollars. Other states have similar financial challenges.
Staying on track and on target to meet these goals will require
increased financial support from PHMSA to the states.
Current law says that the states may be reimbursed up to 80
percent by the Federal Government. During the 4 years prior to
2014, states averaged only 73 percent reimbursement and needed
to request suspensions to merely achieve that level of
reimbursement. In 2014, the latest year money was reimbursed to
the states, the base grant was about $42.2 million for gas and
hazardous liquids. The state spent about $56.4 million on these
pipeline safety programs. This meant states as a whole were
reimbursed approximately 75 percent of what they spent.
In order to keep state programs where they currently are,
we would respectfully request an authorization for
appropriation and appropriation for the fiscal year 2016 of no
less than $49.5 million for state base grants increasing by no
less than 4 percent each fiscal year thereafter. We need to be
fully authorized and funded to carry out our mission.
We all benefit from a sharing of information on best work
practices, best regulatory approach, and best use of resources
to meet these goals.
Thank you for the opportunity to tell you that Michigan
joins with NARUC and all other state regulators to work
collaboratively with government and various stakeholder groups
to achieve a world class pipeline safety program. Thank you,
sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Saari follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Saari, thank you very much.
Our next witness is Mr. Ron Bradley who is vice president
of Gas Operations at PECO Energy. And you are testifying on
behalf of the American Gas Association. Welcome, and you are
recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. Bradley.
STATEMENT OF RON BRADLEY
Mr. Bradley. Good morning, Chairman Whitfield and members
of the committee. My name is Ron Bradley, and I serve as vice
president of Gas Operations at PECO, which safely provides
reliable electric and natural gas service to approximately two
million customers in southeastern Pennsylvania.
PECO is part of the Exelon family of companies. Exelon is
the nation's largest competitive energy provider serving more
than eight million electric and natural gas customers in
Illinois, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. Today, I am testifying on
behalf of the American Gas Association which represents more
than 200 local distribution companies, also known as LDCs.
AGA members' companies operate 2.5 million miles of
underground pipeline safely delivering clean, affordable
natural gas to more than 71 million customers. LDCs provide the
last critical link in the energy delivery chain connecting
interstate pipelines directly to homes and businesses. Our
focus every day is ensuring that we keep the gas flowing safely
and reliably.
As part of an agreement with the Federal Government, most
states assume primary responsibility for the safety and
regulation of LDCs, as well as intrastate transmission
pipelines. Many states adopt standards that exceed federal
requirements. Additionally, our companies are in close contact
with state pipeline safety inspectors which permit a greater
number of inspections to occur than is required by federal law.
In addition to a culture of compliance, LDCs embrace the
culture of proactive, collaborative engagement. Each company
employs trained safety professionals, provides safety training,
conducts rigorous system inspections, testing, maintenance and
repair, and replacement programs, and educates the public on
natural gas safety. AGA's commitment to enhancing safety
adopted in 2011 provides a summary of these commitments beyond
federal regulation.
The commitment to enhancing safety has been modified
several times to address new issues that have been identified
and was recently modified to include actions to improve the
safety of underground storage operations. The AGA has also
developed numerous pipeline safety initiatives focused on
raising the bar on safety including peer-to-peer reviews and
best practice forums that share best practices and lessons
learned throughout the industry. Each year, LDCs spent
approximately $22 billion on safety. Approximately half of that
on our voluntary actions. This number continues to escalate as
work commences on newly approved accelerated pipeline
replacement programs.
Now turning to a review of the legislation. The Pipeline
Inspection, Protection, Enforcement and Safety Act of 2006 and
the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Creation, and Job Creation Act
of 2011 created new programs to improve the safety of the
industry. AGA member companies have implemented aspects of
these programs either voluntarily or through DOT regulation.
However, many of these programs are in their infancy in terms
of implementation, and we encourage Congress to allow these
programs to develop and mature in order to realize their full
impact.
In the case of the unanimously passed 2011 Act, several
regulations have yet to be promulgated or finalized. The
progress that is being made is very important that the focus be
on finishing the outstanding work. We commend the committee for
emphasizing this in its initial draft. Layering new laws and
regulation on to companies before existing regulations have
been finalized and provided time to succeed creates uncertainty
that undermines our shared safety goals.
While we appreciate the committee's efforts to put forward
a bipartisan bill, we are supportive of most of the text. We
are very concerned that Section 15 of the draft bill would
allow a person to bring a civil action in a District Court of
the United States for injunction against PHMSA for failure to
perform any nondiscretionary duty, even if PHMSA was engaged in
enforcing its mandatory obligations under the law. This would
have a deleterious effect of undermining and thus weakening the
federal regulatory oversight this committee seeks to enhance
and could cause market uncertainty.
Moreover, to the extent that PHMSA would have to dedicate
resources and time to litigation or complying with a court
order, it could significantly diminish the agency's ability to
work on other congressional priorities, thus negatively
impacting pipeline safety.
The creation of such a legal remedy could be used by
individuals, however well intentioned, in a way that would be
counter to the best interests of the nation, individual states,
industry, and ultimately consumers while not necessarily
enhancing safety. Thus, we respectfully urge the removal of
Section 15 of the bill. The industry is already experiencing
significant uncertainty regarding PHMSA's implementation of
outstanding mandates in the 2011 bill.
Regarding replacement of cast iron mains, a focus of the
2011 pipeline safety reauthorization. The quantity of these
mains continues to steadily decline. As of today, overall cast
iron mains makes up less than two percent of total mileage.
Natural gas utilities are working with legislators and
regulators to accelerate the replacement of these pipelines. To
date, 39 states and the District of Columbia have adopted
specific rate mechanisms that facilitate accelerated
replacement of pipelines that are primary candidates for system
enhancement.
In addition to what I have highlighted, my written
testimony provides updates on the industry's efforts with
regard to incident notification, data collection, and
information sharing, and research and development. I am pleased
to answer questions on these topics or any other topics that
you have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bradley follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Bradley. Our next witness is
Mr. Andrew Black. I am delighted to have you back at the Energy
and Commerce Committee, Andy. He is president and CEO of the
Association of Oil Pipelines and also, my understanding,
testifying on behalf of API. So you are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW BLACK
Mr. Black. Thank you, chairman, ranking member. The
Association of Oil Pipelines who deliver crude oil, refined
products like gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel and natural
gas liquids such as propane. As the chairman indicated, I am
also testifying on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute.
Our U.S. pipelines safely deliver more than 16.2 billion
barrels of crude oil and energy products a year. Pipelines play
a critical role in delivering energy to American workers and
families. Americans use the energy our pipelines deliver in
their cars and trucks to commute to work or drive on the job,
provide rural heating and crop drying and support good paying
manufacturing jobs. The average barrel of crude oil or
petroleum products reaches its destination safely, by pipeline,
greater than 99.999 percent of the time.
Addressing Mr. McKinley's question earlier, according to
PHMSA date, significant liquids pipeline incidents that could
affect high-consequence areas are down 8 percent over the last
5 years. Significant incidents per mile that are over 50
barrels in size are down 19 percent over the last 5 years. But
even with these positive pipeline safety performance numbers,
the member companies of AOPL and API are constantly working to
improve pipeline safety further.
Last year, operators completed development of a number of
industry-wide recommended practices and technical reports to
improve our ability to detect pipeline cracking, integrate
safety data, manage safety efforts holistically, manage leak
detection programs, and better plan for and respond to pipeline
emergencies.
This year, we turn to implementation of these safety
recommendations industry wide. A prime example is our effort to
encourage and assist implementation of API Recommended Practice
1173 for pipeline safety management systems. Recommended by the
NTSB and developed in conjunction with PHMSA and state pipeline
regulators, this tool is helping pipeline operators
comprehensively manage all the safety efforts underway across
the company. The aviation, nuclear power, and chemical
manufacturing industries have benefitted from safety management
systems. Now more pipeline operators are benefitting, too.
This year, pipeline operators will also complete expansion
of industry wide recommended practice on river crossings,
develop a new one for construction quality management, and
update industry-wide recommendations for pipeline integrity
program management. This last safety improvement action brings
us to last summer's pipeline release near Refugio, California.
We echoed Transportation Secretary Foxx calling the preliminary
instant report from PHMSA ``an important step forward that will
help us learn what went wrong so that everyone involved can
take action and ensure that it does not happen again.'' Our
members are committed to doing just that.
PHMSA's preliminary factual findings could be described as
the what of the incident. We expect PHMSA's final report later
this year will contain root cause analysis and recommendations
describing the still unknown how and why this incident
occurred. At a minimum, we know there is opportunity for
further industry-wide discussion and perhaps guidance for those
operators that use the specific type of pipe involved in that
incident, insulated pipe transporting heated crude. As part of
our update of this industry-wide integrity management guidance,
we will ensure learnings from industry-wide review and PHMSA
incident report recommendations are reviewed and incorporated
where appropriate. The effort should be finished later this
year, far more expeditiously than could occur through an agency
notice and comment rulemaking process.
Turning to the next reauthorization, there is still much
left for PHMSA to do from the 2011 law. PHMSA is working to
finalize a broad liquids pipeline rulemaking as the
administrator said, and may propose a rulemaking on valves
soon.
We commend Congress for its recent oversight in PHMSA,
which has resulted in the administration issuing several
rulemaking proposals and promising additional proposals and we
encourage your ongoing oversight. Pipeline operators have not
stood by and instead have advanced safety initiatives on
inspection technology, cracking, data integration, safety
management, leak detection, and emergency response. With the
numerous recent industry initiatives addressing current
pipeline safety topics, and additional PHMSA regulatory actions
still to come, we encourage Congress to reauthorize the
pipeline safety program soon without adding significant new
provisions.
Upon a brief review of the committee's discussion draft,
AOPL and API would find it difficult to support the draft with
the inclusion of Section 15. Private mandamus civil actions to
compel agencies to perform certain duties have earned the
moniker ``sue and settle'' because of their abuse at agencies
such as EPA. A Chamber of Commerce report identified 60 cases
of ``sue and settle'' lawsuits from 2009 to 2012 resulting in
100 new EPA regulations costing from tens of millions to
billions of dollars each. ``Sue and settle'' circumvents public
participation, dilutes congressional oversight, bypasses
standard administration review and analysis, and it limits
agency transparency.
In January, the House expressed its concern with ``sue and
settle'' abuse by passing H.R. 712, reforming these processes
in legislation that sadly appears unlikely to become public
law. We urge that Section 15 be removed from the draft.
Thank you for inviting me here today and I look forward to
answering any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Black follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Black. Our next witness is
Mr. Donald Santa who is president and CEO of the Interstate
Natural Gas Association of America.
Welcome back, Mr. Santa, and you are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF DONALD SANTA
Mr. Santa. Good morning and thank you, Chairman Whitfield,
Ranking Member Rush, and members of the subcommittee. My name
is Donald Santa, and I am president and CEO of the Interstate
Natural Gas Association of America, or INGAA. INGAA represents
interstate natural gas transmission pipeline operators in the
U.S. and Canada. The pipeline systems operated by INGAA's 24
member companies are analogous to the interstate highway
system, transporting natural gas across state and regional
boundaries.
INGAA testified before this subcommittee last July
regarding pipeline safety and reauthorization of the Pipeline
Safety Act. In that testimony, I outlined INGAA's safety
commitments, undertaken in 2011, and the most recent amendments
to the law that specifically affect natural gas transmission
safety programs. I direct my testimony today to the specifics
of the draft reauthorization bill now before the subcommittee.
INGAA has consistently advocated three goals in connection
with the pending reauthorization of the Pipeline Safety Act.
These goals are first, establish authorized funding levels for
the pipeline safety programs at PHMSA for the next 4 fiscal
years; second, continue to focus PHMSA rulemaking resources on
the completion of the remaining mandates from the 2011
reauthorization, with one exception below; and third, that
exception, create federal minimum safety standards and
regulations for underground natural gas storage facilities.
The discussion draft meets these three goals. There is also
very similar to the bill, S.2276, approved last December by the
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. That
legislation is now pending before the full Senate and may be
approved as early as this week. We appreciate that this
subcommittee's discussion draft parallels the Senate bill in
most respects because this will make it far easier to
conference the two bills.
A few quick points. First, the fiscal years covered by this
authorization. The Senate legislation covers fiscal years 2016
through 2019. This technically would be a 4-year authorization.
As a practical matter, fiscal year 2016 has already been
appropriated, and by the time this legislation is enacted, the
current fiscal year will be close to an end. For this truly to
be a 4-year authorization, INGAA suggests beginning with the
fiscal year 2017 authorization or in the alternative, making
the authorization effective through fiscal year 2020.
Second, we agree with the manner in which the underground
natural gas storage section was drafted and especially the
clarification that PHMSA may delegate to a state the authority
to regulate intrastate storage facilities. This provision has
our support.
Discussion draft, however, differs from the Senate bill in
one important respect. Namely, the draft includes a provision
that would allow an individual petition a federal district
court to enjoin PHMSA in connection with that agency's alleged
failure to act. As explained further in my written testimony,
INGAA believes that this provision is ill-advised. It would
allow the priorities of individual parties and the judgment of
a federal district court judge to supplant the pipeline safety
priorities and the allocation of agency resources established
by PHMSA pursuant to the guidance provided by Congress. INGAA
would seriously consider opposing the Pipeline Safety Bill if
this provision were included.
My written testimony includes comments on several other
provisions in the draft bill which in the interest of time I
will omit for my oral statement.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide
INGAA's views on the discussion draft. I would be happy to
answer your questions at the appropriate time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Santa follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Santa, and our next witness
is Mr. Carl Weimer.
Welcome back, Mr. Weimer, and he is testifying on behalf of
the Pipeline Safety Trust where he is the executive director,
and you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CARL WEIMER
Mr. Weimer. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Whitfield,
Ranking Member Rush, and members of the committee. Thank you
for inviting me to speak today on the important subject of
pipeline safety.
The Pipeline Safety Trust came into being after a pipeline
disaster that occurred nearly 17 years ago. At that time, we
were asked by the federal courts to create a watchdog
organization over both the industry and the regulators. We have
been trying to fulfill that vision ever since, but the increase
in the number of significant incidents over the past decade
driven primarily by releases from liquid pipelines from causes
well within pipeline operators' control, makes us sometimes
question whether our message is being heard.
Today, I would like to dedicate my testimony to the memory
of Peter Hayes who I met shortly after a Chevron pipeline
dumped oil into Red Butte Creek in Salt Lake City. Mr. Hayes, a
school teacher, was raising his family in a home that set on
the banks of Red Butte Creek and he was extremely concerned
about the possible long term health effects to the people in
that area who were not evacuated immediately and experienced
many different health symptoms associated with exposure to
crude oil. He pushed hard for better emergency response and for
someone to follow up with a study to determine whether people
so exposed would experience any long term health problems. No
one ever did such a study and in a tragic twist of fate, Mr.
Hayes came down with a rare lung disease that may, in part, be
caused by such exposure to environmental pollutants. He died
last year.
The need for studies on the health effects of exposure to
oil spills has long been a void in our national pipeline safety
system and was recently again called for by a National Academy
of Sciences panel. Often in these hearings the focus is on how
PHMSA has failed to implement various mandates and moved too
slowly on regulatory initiatives. While we agree that those
things are all important and fair game at such hearings, today
we would like to focus our testimony on how the pipeline safety
system that Congress has created also has much to do with
PHMSA's inability to get things done.
PHMSA can only implement rules that Congress authorizes
them to enact and there are many things in the statutes that
could be changed to remove unnecessary barriers to more
effective and efficient pipeline safety. The pipeline safety
statutes are the responsibility of Congress and today we will
speak to issues where Congress needs to act if there is a real
desire to improve pipeline safety
Some of the things that Congress could change fairly easily
would be to provide PHMSA with emergency order authority like
other transportation agencies have. This would allow PHMSA to
quickly correct dangerous industry-wide problems such as a lack
of minimum rules for underground gas storage or the lack of
valid verification of maximum allowable operating pressures. At
the same time, by eliminating the unique and duplicative cost
benefit requirement in the program statute, normal rulemakings
could proceed at more than the current glacial speed.
Congress also needs to harmonize the criminal penalty
section of PHMSA's statutes so in the rare case when pipeline
companies willfully or recklessly cause harm to people or the
environment, they can be prosecuted as is necessary. And
Congress should also add a strong mandamus clause as suggested
in this committee's working draft bill to allow the federal
courts to force PHMSA to fulfill their duties when it is the
agency that is dragging its feet.
As I mentioned earlier, the National Academy of Sciences
recently completed a congressionally-mandated study that showed
there were a number of serious issues with the way that PHMSA
oversees spill response planning and the contents of those
plans. We hope you will rapidly move to ensure that PHMSA is
reviewing these plans not only for completeness, but also for
efficacy as other agencies do and require companies to provide
clear information so first responders know what they are up
against.
We also ask that you honor the memory of Peter Hayes and
request an additional study by the National Academy of Sciences
to help alleviate the lack of information about how to better
protect people from the short and long term health effects of
when pipelines fail.
Finally, we have a few concerns with the language included
in various reauthorization bills and hope you can address these
concerns in your own bill. In particular, we think the wording
in the statutory preference section of your draft bill may slow
needed rules. We also think the language regarding underground
gas storage needs to be clarified to ensure an open rulemaking
process happens as soon as possible and that whatever is passed
allows states to set stricter standards for facilities within
their borders.
And finally, we think the language in the Senate bill
regarding small LNG facilities pushes PHMSA too much to rely on
industry-developed standards and hard to enforce risk based
systems.
I see my time is about up, so I thank you for this
opportunity to testify today and I would be glad to answer any
questions now or in the future.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weimer follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Weimer, thank you, and thank all of you
for your testimony. And at this time I will recognize Mr. Olson
of Texas for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Olson. I thank the chair for his courtesies. And
welcome to our witnesses. A special welcome to Mr. Black and
Mr. Santa.
As we all know, the first exports of American crude oil
left Corpus Christi a few weeks ago and this week the first
exports of American liquefied natural gas left Texas and
Louisiana this week as well. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
That is American liquid freedom going to Latin America and
going to Europe. You guys are rock stars back home because of
that.
But let us talk about corrosion. In the investigation of
the 2015 pipeline spill at Refugio Beach in California, they
found corrosion in the pipeline. That fact should be no
surprise. Obsolete gas pipelines and liquid pipes operate in
tough environments. Soil corrodes. The product within the
pipeline corrodes. And these aren't always brand-new pipes.
As I saw in our Navy, corrosion starts from day one. In
fact, they attack it every day with what is called a paint and
chip detail. The young sailors have a scraper, a bucket of
paint, and a brush and go all over the ship trying to curtail
corrosion. It is a big challenge.
So can you both, please, with you Mr. Black and Mr. Santa,
discuss how you plan to control corrosion in your pipelines?
Feel free. Big question, I know.
Mr. Black. Corrosion may have been the biggest target of
the modern integrity management regulations and it has been a
success. Internal and external corrosion is down by greater
than 50 percent. I think there is a 70 percent over 10 years
and I am happy to get that fact for you.
Mr. Olson. Thank you.
Mr. Black. External corrosion has been reduced greatly by
the practice of cathodic protection in pressing the current on
to the pipeline and turning the pipeline into a cathode and
anode, suffers the corrosion consequences. Internal corrosion
has been worked on by cleaning pigs and then of course, the in-
line inspection.
Mr. Olson. A smart pig is right across the hall, I think,
actually. A smart pig is there right now.
Mr. Black. Yes, exactly. They are supposed to gather that
information. Like you, we are concerned by what we heard in the
PHMSA initial incident report and we are eager, as an industry
to get the final results on that so that we can develop our
industry-wide recommendations to operators to address
corrosion.
We have already committed to updating API Recommended
Practice 1160, Pipeline Integrity Program Management, to
address the properties related to the special type of pipe,
heated, insulated pipe, transporting heated crude.
Mr. Olson. Mr. Santa, natural gas people, your pipelines,
any concerns about corrosion, but what is your biggest--what is
your plan to deal with corrosion to control it?
Mr. Santa. First, as Mr. Black said, I think we have a
success story here. As a result of the Integrity Management
Programs that were prescribed by Congress, and then PHMSA
acting pursuant to that, corrosion incidents on interstate
pipelines are down dramatically, as a result of the Integrity
Management Program.
As you noted in setting up your question, that corrosion
has a lot more to do with the environment in which the pipeline
exists and not necessarily the age of the pipeline, the
important point here is a pipe, regardless of its age, to
ensure that it is fit for service.
As a result of fulfilling the mandates in the regulations
on integrity management, in fact, interstate pipelines have
tested far greater mileage than that which is mandated just
because of the nature of where these devices are inserted and
removed from the pipelines.
As part of INGAA's voluntary commitments that were made in
2011, INGAA's members committed to expanding the scope of
integrity management practices and we also expect to see the
expansion of integrity management addressed as part of the
upcoming PHMSA rulemaking on natural gas transmission
pipelines.
Mr. Olson. So still the safest way to transport liquids is
with pipelines pure and simple.
Mr. Santa. Yes.
Mr. Olson. Another question for you, Mr. Black. PHMSA is
looking to require remotely operated automatic shutoff valves
in pipelines in the future. GAO has done a report on that and
found that there are some safety concerns in some cases where
they are used on liquid pipelines. What are your thoughts on
automatic shutoff valves and what issues do they pose for
liquid lines?
Mr. Black. Well, I would like to distinguish automatic
acting from automated valves, a practice in liquid pipelines
construction today is to use remote controlled automated valves
to safely shutdown a pipeline in the event that the pipeline
needs to be shut down. Self-operating, self-actuating automatic
shutoff valves cause safety concerns. GAO found that there can
be a pressure build up with an automatic valve closing quickly
and that can damage the pipeline.
We reviewed and found nine incidents caused by conditions
similar to an automatic shutoff valve closing abruptly, one of
which had more than 400 barrels put along the right of way. So
remote controlled, automated shutoff valves are important to be
used in liquids pipelines and are.
Mr. Olson. I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time has expired. At this
time I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush for 5
minutes.
Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Weimer, in your
testimony you state that reauthorization should include
directing PHMSA to conduct a study with the National Academy of
Sciences to better understand the potential long term health
benefits from pipeline failures and provide recommendations for
threshold levels in order to better inform the evacuation
decisions and the equipment necessary to measure such
thresholds as part of the spill response plan.
How did you come to this conclusion and why do you think
this issue is so important that Congress should address it in
the upcoming reauthorization bill?
Mr. Weimer. Yes, thank you for the question. We came to
that conclusion from a number of sources. The recent National
Academy of Sciences study mentioned the need for greater
studies on both human and environmental impacts of crude oil
spills. But we have seen it over and over again after incidents
that have happened in the last few years. The first one that I
became aware of was the one I mentioned in my testimony in Salt
Lake City. A number of people and their children got quite ill
after a spill when they weren't evacuated. There was general
confusion at that spill of who was in charge, whether it was
the local health department, whether they had equipment to
measure the vapors and what people were breathing and when
evacuation should occur. We saw similar things in Michigan
after the big spill into the Kalamazoo River. And then in
Mayflower, Arkansas when crude oil ran through a neighborhood
there, we saw the types of illnesses.
Each state seems to have different thresholds for when they
might evacuate people. There seems to be confusion who is in
charge in those on-going incidents of those spills and those
same health effects. Regardless of the type of crude oil has
led us to the desire, along with the National Academy of
Sciences that such a study be done to clarify what equipment
needs to be on scene, how quickly and what those thresholds
should be measured at.
Mr. Rush. That is pretty alarming, and it seems as though
we are--that is a real nightmare of a thought that you have a
pipeline rupture and not have any idea about its effect on your
family's health. That is pretty alarming.
Are communities around this nation, are they generally well
informed and educated about pipeline projects and the number of
pipelines and the capacity of things and what really is being
transmitted through those pipelines? Are they aware about the
benefits of these pipelines and potential costs of these
pipelines and if they are not, then what are some of the tools
that we can use to help spread awareness among the American
people regarding these pipelines?
Mr. Weimer. Yes, thank you again for that question. I think
communities are becoming more aware. Unfortunately, the
communities that seem to pay attention are the ones where there
has been an incident, so it is after the fact.
PHMSA has done a very good job, actually, putting a lot of
information available on their Web site in trying to push out
information, but it still hasn't sunk in. A lot of it falls on
the industry. There is a lot of emphasis from the industry to
work with the local communities to make sure emergency response
and emergency plans are in place. But we need the communities
to pay attention to that.
There is a lot of lack of information. I am an elected
official in the country where I am from and I have been on the
Emergency Planning Committee. When I ask these questions about
do we have MSDS sheets like the National Academy of Sciences
asked for or do we have monitoring equipment that will be put
in place quickly if there is an incident, most of the emergency
planners in my community and other places we have checked with
just don't have that information. So there need to be more
proactive efforts by all of us involved to make sure local
governments are paying attention.
Mr. Rush. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have run out of
time.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time has expired. I will
recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions. I had asked
Administrator Dominguez as she was leaving, what is a
reportable incident? And I would ask those of you on the panel
when are you required to report an incident to PHMSA? Do you
know, Mr. Weimer?
Mr. Weimer. It is funny that you ask that question because
Mr. Black and I were joking about that because we are both on a
committee with PHMSA working on indicators and there is a
number of different reporting requirements depending--there are
serious incidents. That is when somebody gets killed or
hospitalized. Those number of incidents have actually been
declining so that is a good trend. There are significant
incidents. That is when you do $50,000 worth of damage,
property damage, you kill or injure somebody or you spill a
certain amount. I think it is like 50 barrels for liquid
pipeline.
Mr. Whitfield. Fifty barrels?
Mr. Weimer. Fifty barrels, a couple thousand gallons. That
would be considered a significant incident or if there is an
explosion or fire.
Mr. Whitfield. OK.
Mr. Weimer. And then there are reportable incidents and I
think that is as low as five barrels or maybe even five gallons
for hazardous liquid pipeline.
Mr. Whitfield. OK, so there is like three or four different
levels, OK.
Mr. Bradley. Those thresholds apply to natural gas as well.
They rack up to the dollar amount.
Mr. Whitfield. OK.
Mr. Santa. Let me add to Mr. Bradley's point there that in
some ways sometimes that leads to nonsensical results because
if you think about the variability of natural gas or oil
commodity prices, not natural gas prices.
Mr. Whitfield. Yes.
Mr. Santa. And if in reporting the damage you are reporting
the dollar value of the gas that was emitted, well, that is
going to be a far greater value when the price of gas is a
dollar versus when it may be four dollars. So probably
something there to ensure greater consistency to really measure
what are the tangible dangers or effects rather than something
that depends upon the commodity price that makes sense.
Mr. Whitfield. And Mr. Black, how many miles of oil
pipeline do we have in the U.S.?
Mr. Black. One hundred ninety-nine thousand of liquids,
oil, refined products, natural gas liquids, and CO2,
yes, sir.
Mr. Whitfield. And natural gas?
Mr. Santa. Natural gas transmission pipelines, it is over
300,000 miles, about 220,000 interstate.
Mr. Whitfield. And how much of the crude oil that has been
transported through pipelines is heated?
Mr. Black. Very little.
Mr. Whitfield. Very little?
Mr. Black. Only if it is necessary.
Mr. Whitfield. OK. One comment I want to make because as
you notice, the Section 15 of our draft in parentheses they
have got this private action of suit. And I noticed after the
San Bruno incident, I think maybe I read this in your
testimony, Mr. Weimer, where the City of San Francisco sued in
federal court asking that the federal court require PHMSA to
reject the State of California certification that the pipeline
system met the federal standards.
And I had a little bit of a problem with that myself
because that is the mission of PHMSA to make sure that--so here
you have the City of San Francisco suing the State of
California basically, as well as the Federal Government, asking
a federal judge to mandate that they not accept a certification
from the state.
So I have a real problem with Section 15 myself and the
``sue and settle'' for example at EPA has really been a major
headache because what we see, third parties file the suit. They
enter into a settlement with EPA and its lawyers or Justice and
the states affected by those suits are not able to even
participate in the settlements which I find unacceptable.
And so I agree with the three of you that this is a real
issue and having said that, I mean I am going to try to not
include this, but having said that I have got 50 seconds left
and I know Mr. Weimer disagrees, so I will turn it over to you
to make your argument.
Mr. Weimer. All right, thank you for that. Yes, we saw that
after the California, the San Bruno incident you mentioned. I
think the City of San Francisco and others----
Mr. Whitfield. Is your microphone on?
Mr. Weimer. Yes. Were pretty aghast at the way that the
California Public Utility Commission had overseen the law over
the past few years. There is still, I think, even criminal
investigations going because the connections between the
California Public Utility Commission and the industry out
there. And that led San Francisco to file that.
We are agnostic on the arguments that San Francisco made,
but when we saw the federal court step in and try to throw out
the idea that the citizens or local governments could go to
court to try to force PHMSA to do what their jobs requires them
to do that is when we thought it was important.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you. My time has expired. At this
time, I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman. I thank the
panelists for coming in here today.
I am going to start with you, Mr. Weimer. Do you believe
that there is adequate representation across all interested
parties on the advisory committees at PHMSA?
Mr. McNerney. Yes. The advisory committees are made up of
the three groups, regulators, the public, and the industry. And
I think the way it is designed it is pretty well, the slots
don't always get filled in a timely manner. Like at our last
Technical Committee meeting when we were talking about the
liquids rule, there were still two public slots that were open,
so it would be nice before major rules are considered if all
the slots are filled.
Mr. McNerney. How about the actual staff of PHMSA? Is there
adequate staffing or is there an urgent need to fill more
positions?
Mr. Weimer. I think Congress has given them a huge budget
increase that allowed them to add over a hundred new
inspectors. That was good. And they are also working on some
program enhancements. So I think time will tell over the next
couple of years whether they can fill those slots and whether
that is an adequate number.
Mr. McNerney. Well, in your testimony you mentioned
something about cost benefit analysis. Could you expand on that
discussion a little bit, please?
Mr. Weimer. Sure. I think it was back in the '90s. It might
have been the 1996 Act. Congress put in a cost benefit
requirement in the pipeline statute. As far as we can
determine, this is the only administration that has kind of
this double cost benefit, both in the statute and also then
when the rules go to OMB. Talking with a number of people that
do those things, they really think that can kind of slow down
the process and as everybody on this committee has mentioned
you know, PHMSA has been kind of slow to meet some of these. So
since all of the rules that go to OMB have to go through a cost
benefit, this double cost benefit analysis early on and then
when it goes to OMB may be slowing down rules unnecessarily.
Mr. McNerney. Would industry object if the cost benefit
requirements were eased?
Mr. Weimer. You would probably have to ask them.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Santa?
Mr. Santa. Yes, Mr. McNerney. I would suggest that before
the committee amend the law or propose to amend the law to
address that that it examine whether there, in fact, have been
any instances in which the statutory cost benefit analysis has
added to the time and the burden. I would agree that the amount
of time that it takes to get a rule through OMB is very
troublesome and that that ought to be addressed and that that
often seems to reflect the priorities of a particular
administration that is in office where some rules go through
very, very quickly and others get terribly bogged down.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Black, you said that you felt Congress
should pass the law pretty much as it is now in the discussion
draft form. At least that is what I understood.
Mr. Black. Without adding significant new mandates to
PHMSA, yes, sir.
Mr. McNerney. So mandates. Because I was going to say
Administrator Dominguez, her one recommendation to me was that
they should have additional authority to react to critical
situations. Would you agree with that or not?
Mr. Black. Well, if PHMSA is aware of some safety
information like the defective fittings she mentioned, we
encourage them to get that word out as soon as possible. They
have got that process right now through the advisory bulletin
process and I can tell you I have seen first-hand how important
those advisory bulletins are to the industry. I am not aware of
any incidents that would have been avoided in the past if
emergency order authority was in place. We are ready to look at
a proposal, but we would think it should have a high standard.
It should address emergency conditions that pose imminent
threats or widespread harm, should be narrow in scope, should
be subject to expedited review. Happy to look.
Mr. McNerney. There is no doubt in my mind that you all and
industry want to prevent incidents. There is no doubt in my
mind about it and that you will take steps to do that, but I
have a feeling that if it is left to industry, it will tend to
be optimistic and you need a little oversight to make sure the
optimism doesn't cause problems.
Mr. Black. If PHMSA is aware of information like a defect,
we want to hear about it as soon as possible. Their quickest
way to get that information out is the advisory bulletin
process.
Mr. McNerney. And not only that, creating rules that--high
standards that cause industry to have safety standards that
prevent incidents.
What is the typical industry response to an advisory
bulletin by PHMSA, Mr. Black?
Mr. Black. Read very carefully. We have industry groups,
employees working on pipeline safety issues focusing on
improvement and they are dissecting those very closely. We have
got instances of advisory bulletins in the last couple of years
that have led to operators getting that aha moment and taking
that back to their companies.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. At this time I
recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And thanks very much to
the panel for being here today.
Mr. Santa, if I could start with a few questions for you.
Can you comment on how your members use the 811 Dial Before You
Dig program and do you believe that it would be helpful to
incorporate new technologies or best practices to improve the
communication between the stakeholders from receipt of
excavation notification until successful completion of the
excavation?
Mr. Santa. Mr. Latta, INGAA's members strongly support 811.
One of the significant causes of pipeline incidents is
excavation damage and so we very strongly support 811 and
strong programs to ensure that all excavators are subject to
such programs.
If there are specific proposals on how via using
technology, the effectiveness of those programs can be
improved, I think we would be very interested in hearing that.
Mr. Latta. Let me follow up with that. How can the Federal
Government help advance the adoption of developing those
technologies? Are there technologies out there that we should
be doing, the Federal Government should be helping to advance?
Mr. Santa. Well, PHMSA has dollars in its budget that it
can use at its own discretion for research and development.
Also, there is the ability to do cost-shared research and
development with the industry since we all share the goal of
improved pipeline safety and developing technologies that can
prove that.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. Mr. Black, how do pipeline operators
use in-line inspection, the so-called smart pig technology to
find problems in their pipelines?
Mr. Black. Well, you put this cylinder-shape robot inside
the pipeline and push it through with the force of the liquid
and it collects information about the properties of the
pipeline, terabytes of information. That information is then
taken out of the smart pig and it is analyzed by a third party
vendor working with the pipeline operator to determine what
features need to be investigated. They follow industry
practices and PHMSA regulations about which features need to be
uncovered and inspected in person by a pipeline to determine
whether there needs to be a repair or whether it is just an
issue that hasn't become a problem yet. The results of this
which cost more than $2.2 billion in 2014, has been a dramatic
decrease in corrosion-related incidents and in all types of
incidents since modern integrity management practices were put
into place.
Mr. Latta. So you are saying that the technology we have
today has really increased the ability to find those cracks
that are out there in the pipeline?
Mr. Black. Yes. It is finding more. That is more for
pipeline operators and these third-party vendors to look at.
Now the challenge is taking all of this information, finding
out what are those true positives that need to be addressed and
finding those issues and repairing them before they become a
problem.
Mr. Latta. Let me ask this also. In the draft bill that we
have here today, there is a provision for the use of the smart
pigs not less than once every 12 months for certain deep water
pipelines. Is that a reasonable interval for that?
Mr. Black. It would address pipeline water crossings of
greater than 150. We would not support that being applied to a
greater set of pipelines and I will explain why. Right now,
pipeline operators are required to assess the condition of
their pipelines and to prioritize areas based on risk.
Determining a 1 year inspection schedule is not really
supported by the conditions of that pipeline. It is not
reported by what has been found. It is arbitrary. If that is to
be expanded, we would find that it is diverting safety dollars
from areas of greater risk.
One year in pipeline integrity management for inspections
is probably too soon. Any time that pipeline operator does that
smart pig and gets that result, some features that they find
require analysis within a year. Some are immediate. But to run
a smart pig every year, you may not learn that much new from
year to year.
Mr. Latta. OK. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the
chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask a
couple of questions of Mr. Weimer. In Ms. Dominguez' testimony,
she requested that Congress give PHMSA emergency order
authority. And PHMSA already has corrective action authority
that allows it to direct a single operator to take action to
protect life, property, and the environment. But as I
understand it, emergency order authority would allow the
secretary to take such action on an industry-wide basis. Seems
like a common-sense tool for the agency to have. I am kind of
shocked that they don't have it already.
Could you just please talk more about this request and
specifically what would the benefits of emergency order
authority be for communities to which pipelines are routed? For
instance, between 2007 and '09, pipe was being produced for
market that did meet industry standards. In your opinion, would
this have been a situation in which emergency order authority
would have been helpful, just as an example?
Mr. Weimer. Yes. Thank you for the question. I think you
hit the point right on the nose, that there is a number of
issues that come up that are found because of an incident on a
specific pipeline. And PHMSA has the authority to order that
specific pipeline to change their ways, but currently they
don't have the authority to change, order the whole industry,
nationwide, to change things. Whether it is pipeline that
wasn't made to specs, that I think you were mentioning that
came to light a few years ago, the fittings that Ms. Dominguez
mentioned or other serious things that become obvious that it
is a nationwide problem, at this point they have to go through
a rulemaking that can take years as we have seen. They do have
the ability to put out advisory bulletins like Mr. Black
mentioned, but the industry is a broad spectrum of different
people and while we think most of the industry pays attention
to the advisory bulletins, there may be some within the
industry that don't.
Mr. Pallone. All right, thank you. And then a second topic
deals with the TAG grants. The Pipeline Safety Information
Technical Assistant Grants are very important to me and a
number of members. I think you know that the grants came into
being as a compromise in 2002 after this committee reached an
impasse on right-to-know language for pipeline inspection data.
And I, for one, think we still need a strong right-to-know
provision in law. If we have that, I think it would be
appropriate to discuss changes to the TAG grant program. The
fact is that we don't have the right to know in the statute, so
we need these grants in order for communities to have access to
the technical expertise and info they need to truly understand
pipeline risks in their area.
A few minutes ago, my colleague, Mr. Mullin, raised some
concerns about the TAG grants and I would like to give you a
chance to respond to those concerns. First, does the Pipeline
Safety Act allow TAG grants to be used for lobbying?
Mr. Weimer. Well, I think specific to the statute, there
are two things that are precluded from use of the money. One is
lobbying. You are not allowed to use any of the TAG grant money
for lobbying and you are not allowed to use it for any type of
lawsuit against a pipeline company.
Mr. Pallone. So the answer is no, it can't be used for
lobbying. It can't be used for litigation.
Mr. Weimer. Correct.
Mr. Pallone. Is there any evidence of a widespread abuse of
TAG grants or do the majority of such grants go for useful,
lawful purposes?
Mr. Weimer. Well, there has been over 160 TAG grants that
have been let out over the course of the program. I am
certainly not knowledgeable of all of those, but I don't know
of any specific grants that have gone toward lobbying or
lawsuits. Most of them have been used by local governments,
local communities, looking at improving safety through GIS
works, emergency response, looking at specific issues and not
for lobbying or lawsuits.
Mr. Pallone. My final question is by allowing communities
to hire experts to obtain independent pipeline safety
assessments, doesn't that help everyone, industry included, by
ensuring that there is real, credible data out there on a
pipeline? I mean that is what these TAG grants are all about,
right?
Mr. Weimer. Yes, absolutely. And we certainly have seen
evidence of that. We were involved with a TAG grant from a
group that got a TAG grant in California this past year and
they had a concern about a hazardous liquid pipeline that ran
through their community. Once we looked at the incidents from
that pipeline and went and met with that community, we kind of
assured them that that pipeline wasn't as big a deal as perhaps
working with the local governments in that community to ensure
that they are dealing with emergency response correctly. Their
concerns for that particular pipeline were kind of overblown
once we shared the correct information with them.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thanks a lot. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. This time I
recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Capps, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all of
our witnesses for your testimonies today. Throughout the course
of this hearing, we have heard over and over about the need to
maximize the safety of natural gas and hazardous liquid
infrastructure. The truth is that far too many of us have had
direct experience with a devastating pipeline or storage
facility incident that has led to significant harm to public
health, the environment, or the local economy. And in every
case, just as it did in my district in response to the Plains
spill this last May, these incidents highlight inadequacy in an
existing management requirement. As we learn from these
tragedies, it is critical that we apply this knowledge to make
all of our communities safer.
Mr. Weimer, you mentioned--my questions are addressed to
you, Mr. Weimer. You mentioned in your testimony that the
number of pipeline incidents has been steadily increasing over
the past 10 years. Can you elaborate on a few? And I have
several questions, so you can make it just one or two, what are
the causes leading to this increased number that we are
experiencing? Does the abundance of aging and outdated
infrastructure have anything to do with the uptick in
incidents?
Mr. Weimer. Yes, thank you for the question. And there was
a graph in my written testimony.
Ms. Capps. Right.
Mr. Weimer. That showed that the significant incidents on
liquid pipelines has been increasing. It is again one of those
measurement things about what are the things that make up
incidents, but there certainly has been a rash of big incidents
like the one that happened in your own district, the Marshall,
Michigan spill; the one in Mayflower, Arkansas that kind of
brought this to a head.
The major causes, when you look at the PHMSA data are
things within pipeline operators' control, things like use and
operation of the pipeline, corrosion and bad equipment.
Ms. Capps. In other words, they are preventable. As a
follow-up, can you elaborate on how emergency order
authorizations could help ensure that systemic issues in
pipeline infrastructure could be responded to in a more timely
manner? As you know, there was quite a significant time lag
between the start of this spill and a response, even though by
chance, emergency responders were very nearby.
Mr. Weimer. Yes, clearly, if PHMSA had emergency order
authority it could help in situations where they learn
something. Like the pipeline that failed in your own district,
there is evidence coming out now and it is not for sure yet,
that because that was an insulated pipeline that may have
affected that pipeline differently.
Ms. Capps. Yes.
Mr. Weimer. If it turns out that is the truth, an emergency
order would allow PHMSA to correct that problem nationally.
Ms. Capps. Exactly. Well, you have led to a topic that we
should be addressing here in our committee.
Now I want to turn to the need for improved response
planning to quickly and adequately react to spills when they do
occur. Without up to date and appropriate response plans in
place is it possible to respond to incidents such as pipeline
failures and spills? In your view, what must all response plans
include and when should these plans be updated, for example, in
response to changing conditions or new knowledge to ensure that
they are both adequate and current? That is a big question. I
am sorry, but you can answer quickly and then respond in
writing for the record, if you would.
Mr. Weimer. Sure. There is a number of things. The National
Academy of Sciences pointed out that PHMSA mainly looks at
these response plans for completeness, not for effectiveness.
Ms. Capps. Right.
Mr. Weimer. They need to change that. They need to ensure
more testing.
Ms. Capps. Thank you. And finally, you touched on a lack of
stringent criminal penalties with regard to violations in
pipeline safety. Are the current criminal and civil penalties
regarding pipeline safety adequate to dissuade operators,
especially the bad actors from committing violations? Can you
elaborate on the need to expand upon existing penalties? I hope
you can.
Mr. Weimer. Sure. The language currently in the pipeline
safety statute is different than what it is on the hazmat side
for PHMSA where they include recklessness as one of the things
that can be prosecuted. We think it should be harmonized with
what they have on the hazmat side and with what a lot of other
safety agencies also have.
Ms. Capps. And again, Mr. Chairman, I hope we can follow up
with discussion of some of these topics.
I appreciate your answers to my questions. It is clear
there are many avenues for improving upon existing pipeline
regulations. It is also clear to me that we must ensure that
PHMSA has the necessary tools to make these changes, including
those that have yet to be implemented from the last
reauthorization to minimize risks associated with natural gas
and hazardous liquid infrastructure.
Once again, I would like to reiterate that I look forward
to continuing to work with the chairman and ranking member to
continue to improve upon the draft that we have so that we can
ensure that we are crafting legislation that will minimize the
frequency and impact of all future spills and protect our
communities. Thank you and I yield back 3 seconds.
Mr. Whitfield. Thank you for yielding back 3 seconds. I
want to thank all of you for joining us today. We look forward
to continuing dialogue as we move forward on this legislation.
And Mr. Saari, we didn't have a lot of questions for you,
but we did pay attention to your testimony and do appreciate
your bringing to the forefront the state grant issue and the
adequate compensation to the states. And particularly in
Michigan, I guess you all have more underground storage of
natural gas than any state in the country is my understanding.
But anyway, that will conclude today's hearing. We will
keep the record open for 10 days. And I would like to enter
into the record a statement from American Public Gas
Association, as well as letters from Representative Capps to
PHMSA, dated February 29, 2016, regarding the Plains pipeline
accident in California. Without objection, it is entered into
the record.
And thank you all again, and that concludes today's
hearing.
[Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]