diff --git "a/data/CHRG-114/CHRG-114hhrg20150.txt" "b/data/CHRG-114/CHRG-114hhrg20150.txt"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/data/CHRG-114/CHRG-114hhrg20150.txt"
@@ -0,0 +1,3321 @@
+
+ - LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO EXAMINE PIPELINE SAFETY REAUTHORIZATION
+
+[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]
+