[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
PIPES ACT OF 2016 IMPLEMENTATION: OVERSIGHT OF PIPELINE SAFETY PROGRAMS
=======================================================================
(115-47)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RAILROADS, PIPELINES,
AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 21, 2018
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
31-569 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
DON YOUNG, Alaska PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
Vice Chair Columbia
FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
SAM GRAVES, Missouri ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DUNCAN HUNTER, California RICK LARSEN, Washington
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
BOB GIBBS, Ohio DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
JEFF DENHAM, California ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky JOHN GARAMENDI, California
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania Georgia
RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
ROB WOODALL, Georgia DINA TITUS, Nevada
TODD ROKITA, Indiana SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
JOHN KATKO, New York ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut,
BRIAN BABIN, Texas Vice Ranking Member
GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
BARBARA COMSTOCK, Virginia CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JARED HUFFMAN, California
MIKE BOST, Illinois JULIA BROWNLEY, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
DOUG LaMALFA, California DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan MARK DeSAULNIER, California
JOHN J. FASO, New York STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
A. DREW FERGUSON IV, Georgia
BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
JASON LEWIS, Minnesota
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
(ii)
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials
JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
SAM GRAVES, Missouri DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania JOHN GARAMENDI, California
MARK SANFORD, South Carolina ANDRE CARSON, Indiana
TODD ROKITA, Indiana RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
JOHN KATKO, New York ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
BRIAN BABIN, Texas CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida
BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas MARK DeSAULNIER, California
LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
JOHN J. FASO, New York, Vice Chair PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
JASON LEWIS, Minnesota Officio)
MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter, including Pipeline Safety, Regulatory
Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 mandates, and
Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety
Act of 2016 mandates........................................... vi
TESTIMONY
Panel 1
Hon. Howard ``Skip'' Elliott, Administrator, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration...................... 3
Panel 2
Andrew J. Black, President and CEO, Association of Oil Pipe Lines 29
Robin Rorick, Group Director, Midstream and Industry Operations,
American Petroleum Institute................................... 29
Chad Zamarin, Senior Vice President, Corporate Strategic
Development, The Williams Companies, Inc., on behalf of the
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.................. 29
Carl Weimer, Executive Director, Pipeline Safety Trust........... 29
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES
Hon. Howard ``Skip'' Elliott..................................... 39
Andrew J. Black.................................................. 50
Robin Rorick..................................................... 56
Chad Zamarin..................................................... 65
Carl Weimer...................................................... 70
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Hon. John Garamendi, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, submission of the names and ages of those killed
in the Pacific Gas and Electric Company pipeline rupture on
September 9, 2010, in San Bruno, California, as well as photos
of the incident referenced in his verbal remarks............... 83
Letter of June 21, 2018, from Mark Uncapher, Director, Fiber
Optic Sensing Association (FOSA), to Hon. Jeff Denham,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials, et al............................................... 87
Article, ``Our Russian `Pipeline,' and Its Ugly Toll,'' by
Editorial Board, Boston Globe, February 13, 2018............... 90
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
PIPES ACT OF 2016 IMPLEMENTATION: OVERSIGHT OF PIPELINE SAFETY PROGRAMS
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 21, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
Materials,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m. in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Denham
(Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. Denham. The subcommittee will come to order. Without
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any
time.
I ask unanimous consent that Members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions.
Without objection, so ordered.
Good morning. This is the Subcommittee on Railroads,
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials. Our hearing today will
focus on the oversight of the Department of Transportation's
pipeline safety program, which is administered by the Pipeline
and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or PHMSA.
The United States has the largest network of energy
pipelines in the world, and it helps power nearly every facet
of our daily activities. Pipelines account for transportation
of 64 percent of the energy commodities consumed in the United
States. To ensure that pipelines continue to be the safest and
most cost-effective means to transport energy products,
diligent oversight of DOT's pipeline safety programs is a top
priority.
Here is the issue. Over the past decade, we have continued
to see this committee pass out reauthorizations, only to see
them get stalled. The 2016 PIPES [Protecting our Infrastructure
of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety] Act strengthened a lot of
our efforts from the 2011 act. But as Mr. Capuano and I have
continued to discuss these issues, we have seen slow
implementation. The PIPES Act contained 19 mandates, 13 of
which are complete. The 2011 law included 42 congressional
mandates, of which 34 are complete. And today we'll hear from
PHMSA on where all the PIPES Act and 2011 act mandates stand.
I look forward to hearing from industry on how it is being
proactive in its own safety initiatives to ensure best
practices for inspections, detecting leaks, and other important
safety initiatives.
In closing, I want to thank each of the witnesses here
today, and I would now like to recognize the ranking member,
Mr. Capuano, for any opening statement he may have.
Mr. Capuano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all
the panelists for being here today.
I generally don't do much of an opening statement, and I am
not going to do one today. But I am going to ask the panelists.
The thing I am most interested in is what has happened to the
regulations that we mandated and we set deadlines for that are
now--some of them--many years past that deadline.
Now, I am not a stickler for deadlines by day by day. It is
one thing being 1 month late. Six months late, a year late--
some of these are many, many, many years late, and they are not
small regulations. And for me, I would ask our panelists today
to focus on that issue. What is the problem with getting some
of these done? And why is it taking so long?
And with that, I am simply going to pass it back.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Capuano. Today we have two
panels of witnesses.
I would like to recognize Mr. Larsen to introduce one of
our witnesses on the second panel.
Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for letting
me sit in on this. And I appreciate the indulgence. There is a
hearing in the Committee on Armed Services that I need to get
over to, as well, but do want to note what a critical role
pipelines play in our Nation's infrastructure.
And I am very pleased to be able to welcome a fellow
Washingtonian and a constituent from Whatcom County to the
second panel, Carl Weimer, who is the executive director of the
Pipeline Safety Trust.
Carl has been a vocal champion and leader of improving
pipeline oversight and accident prevention measures for nearly
20 years. The Trust was formed following the deadly 1999
pipeline explosion in my district, a day that a pipeline
explosion caused release of 237,000 gallons of gasoline into a
creek that flowed through Whatcom Falls Park in Bellingham. It
was ignited and claimed the lives of two 10-year-old boys and
an 18-year-old young man.
Since that tragedy, the Trust has worked tirelessly to
achieve zero pipeline incidents, promote sustainable energy
production and distribution, and increase the transparency of
pipeline information for local communities.
So Carl does a lot of things, but he is also a Whatcom
County Council member, so he is an elected official. So he gets
it, he understand what we go through trying to make these
decisions and to represent folks, and do that in a way that is
respectful.
I do as well share with the subcommittee the concern about
implementing the mandates, implementing the things we have said
we needed to implement, going back to the 2011 and 2016
pipeline bills. But I would note that, going back to 2002, when
I first got here, I have been working on these issues of
pipeline safety.
So I want to thank Carl for testifying.
And if I may just have a special thanks to PHMSA
Administrator Skip Elliott, as well, for recently visiting
Washington State's Second Congressional District to tour the
Olympic pipeline site in Bellingham with the Pipeline Safety
Trust and others, and I appreciate him being here today.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Larsen.
We have two panels today. The first is the Honorable Skip
Elliott, Administrator of PHMSA. Our second panel will have
four witnesses today. We will have questions for both.
I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements
be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
Since your written testimony has been made part of the
record, the subcommittee would request that you limit your oral
testimony to 5 minutes.
We will begin with the first panel.
Mr. Elliott, welcome to the Subcommittee on Railroads,
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials. We welcome your testimony.
TESTIMONY OF HON. HOWARD ``SKIP'' ELLIOTT, ADMINISTRATOR,
PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Elliott. Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Capuano, thank
you for the opportunity to testify before the Railroads,
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee today.
The mission of PHMSA, the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, is to protect people and the environment
by advancing the safe transportation of energy products and
other regulated commodities that are essential to our daily
lives.
After working for decades in the freight rail industry, a
great deal of it focused on improving public safety, I believe
that safety is the result of effective smart regulations that
hold operators fully accountable for their systems.
But I also know that it takes more than just regulations to
improve pipeline safety performance to its highest possible
levels. In my 7 months leading PHMSA I have worked hard to
listen closely to all stakeholders: public, Government,
industry.
And I believe that firsthand experience is the best way to
fully understand the impact of an event, and I traveled
extensively to see how natural gas pipelines are being
installed in Pennsylvania; how we train State and Federal
pipeline inspectors at our world-class training facility in
Oklahoma; how States are working to reduce third-party pipeline
excavation damage in Arizona; how operators are developing and
testing the latest in pipeline inspection technology in Texas;
and how near a beautiful place called Whatcom Falls in
Bellingham, Washington, a pipeline disaster forever changed
that community and the people who live there.
With this as background, I hope today you will all leave
with a clear picture of how I seek to advance PHMSA's important
safety mission. My written testimony reports on two categories
of PHMSA activity.
First, I wanted to update you on our progress in closing
outstanding mandates, including rulemakings for hazardous
liquid and natural gas transmission pipelines, as well as
valves and rupture detection. I do understand the committee's
concerns about these rules. During my confirmation hearing I
talked about the importance of setting priorities and ensuring
quality and safety.
In my written testimony I provide details on PHMSA's
efforts to prioritize congressional directives in a way that
will allow us to finalize each rule quickly, but without
impacting the quality and safety benefits of each individual
rule. These rules remain at the top of my priority list, and I
assure you that PHMSA is working diligently and expeditiously
to complete each one.
Second are PHMSA's nonregulatory efforts, including our
inspector training, grants program, and research and
development. Other important nonregulatory steps include
pipeline damage prevention programs and other initiatives that
encourage industrywide investments in safety management
systems. Each of these areas extends PHMSA's influence beyond
our own relatively small staff, which is an operational
necessity, if we are ever to approach the goal of zero
incidents.
As we work at moving our regulatory portfolio forward, our
most important focus is and always will be on safety. We work
hard at balancing the information, data, comments, and concerns
of all of our regulatory stakeholders, including industry. And
while there has been significant advancement in the capability
of sophisticated inline pipeline inspection tools, there is not
always enough verifiable data available to fully validate the
positive safety effects we require.
Accordingly, PHMSA is not always able to provide the
regulatory latitude some in industry are seeking as quickly as
they may want. It is worth noting, however, that the pipeline
industry appears to be on the verge of a safety technology
renaissance. And once this technology can be fully proven, the
greatest hurdle will be in keeping regulatory requirements
current with the pace of new and better safety solutions that,
in the not too distant future, have the real potential to
provide the most serious pipeline incidents from ever
occurring.
Safety of the systems that we regulate is very good, with a
positive safety rate on both the pipeline and hazardous
materials side that exceeds 99.99 percent. But because our goal
is an incident rate of zero, very good is just a subtle way of
saying not quite good enough.
In that context, our prospect of success lies at the
margin. Zero incidents is a maximum goal. It will never be met
only by enforcing minimum standards. Even as we work hard to
close congressional mandates and perfect our core regulatory
functions, we must pursue success at that margin through
comprehensive training and education, cutting-edge research and
development, strengthening State partnerships, and encouraging
industrywide development of consistent and culture-changing
safety management systems.
With that, thank you again for this opportunity today, and
I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Elliott. You have been on the
job a few months now. Can you describe some of the challenges
that PHMSA has faced in implementing the 2011 and 2016
mandates?
Mr. Elliott. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. As
I mentioned in my comments, I certainly do share the
subcommittee's frustrations on moving forward these open
mandates. In your----
Mr. Denham. But I would say it is a very bipartisan
frustration, as well.
Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir. We recognize that the 2016 PIPES Act
has a number of open mandates, as does the 2011.
But going back to what I mentioned, I am fully focused on
prioritizing the rules that will move most of the mandates
forward as quickly as possible.
We have done several things. We are moving forward the
liquid pipeline rule that is in the final rule stage. That will
answer a number of mandates that are open from both the 2011
and the 2016 PIPES Act, as well as some NTSB [National
Transportation Safety Board] and GAO [U.S. Government
Accountability Office] requirements.
We are also expediting the safety of natural gas pipeline
rule, which was oftentimes referred to as the mega-rule. It
actually had 14 separate sections to it. What we have done is
basically parsed that out into three sections. But the first
section that will move the most quickly--it too is in the final
rule stage--will address the open mandates from the 2011 and
2016 bill.
And the last rule that is the one that I get a lot of
questions about has to do with rupture detection and automatic
valves. That one is not as far along. It is still at the notice
of proposed rulemaking. But I have informed my staff that that
is one that we have to move forward as quickly as possible.
I think there's some other good news on the mandates. The
mandate that dealt with emergency order authority is in the
interim final rule stage, and it is over at OMB [Office of
Management and Budget] now, so that should be coming out
shortly. And then there are several others that are following
up.
So basically, what we are trying to do is move the rules
that have the ability to close most of those open mandates from
2011 PIPES Act, 2016 PIPES Act, as well as addressing open NTSB
and GAO requirements.
We have a concerted effort at PHMSA. We are working to
consolidate our whole regulatory process under my Deputy
Administrator, and we see good movement. I have had great
discussion with the Department on moving these mandates
forward, too.
Mr. Denham. What takes so long to implement a rule? We are
talking about 2011 and 2016.
Mr. Elliott. Mr. Chairman, I can only really address what I
have seen since coming on board about 7 months ago.
Mr. Denham. Well, as you work to implement several new
regulations, are there legacy regulations that need to be
updated or eliminated?
Mr. Elliott. I would say that we need to look into seeing
if there are more legacy regulations, yes, sir, that need to be
updated or regulated. And the team at PHMSA does that
regularly, it looks to update regulations.
Mr. Denham. Are there impediments to implementing
regulations that you feel like you need legislative fixes to
implement them?
And we are searching here----
Mr. Elliott. Right.
Mr. Denham. We have had a number of conversations here on,
you know, Congress passes laws, you would expect, once a law is
passed, signed into law, that it gets implemented very, very
quickly. We're talking 2011.
So, you know, we have had an ongoing frustration here on
why it would take so long to pass something, let alone
something that we passed in 2016. When young Mr. Shuster was a
chair of this subcommittee in 2011, those still aren't even
implemented. What can we do to help you?
Mr. Elliott. Well, Mr. Chairman, I certainly share your
frustrations. I can tell you that after 40 years in the freight
rail industry, where things moved at a pretty rapid pace, to me
there were some frustrations taking over the leadership at
PHMSA about some of the sluggishness.
We are doing everything that we can within PHMSA to
expedite and streamline the process so at least that part of
the rulemaking process that we have control of at PHMSA that we
can move through in a much quicker pace than we have
historically. That work is ongoing. I am a man that believes
that actions speak louder than words. We are working on that
now, and I hope that in the not too distant future you will be
able to see some of the results of that action.
Mr. Denham. Thank you.
Mr. Capuano?
[No response.]
Mr. Denham. Mr. DeFazio?
Mr. DeFazio. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
You started to say, in response to the chairman, that you
could only speak to what you had seen since you arrived 7
months ago, in terms of why the rulemaking is so delayed. You
didn't get to answer that, or didn't finish that thought, I
don't think. Could you?
Mr. Elliott. Ranking Member DeFazio, good morning to you,
sir.
Mr. DeFazio. Thank you. Good morning.
Mr. Elliott. I have to, I think, tell you that, you know,
coming into the role at the head of PHMSA and beginning to
understand the whole regulatory process, including the backlogs
of open mandates, I think it is fair to say that there were a
number of explanations as to why the open mandates seem to
languish, even those from the 2011 PIPES Act.
But what I have really tried to focus on is understanding
the concern. I mean from the first day that I came to PHMSA,
you know, there were regular dialogue about why are these
mandates not moving any faster. And going back to my
confirmation hearing, I said that we need to prioritize, but we
can't reduce quality and we can't reduce safety.
So I think we have done the prioritization part, at least
from what I have been able to see from my time at PHMSA. Again,
we are working to make the whole regulatory process at PHMSA
much more streamlined. We have made good progress. I think
there is more work to do. But I do hope, Ranking Member
DeFazio, that this is something that will be sustainable for
years to come.
I am also learning, you know, that there are some reviews
that take place outside of PHMSA that also play a role in the
whole regulatory process, and I am learning quickly about that.
Mr. DeFazio. Yeah, I think we would be talking about OMB.
They hold up a lot of things over there.
Are you bound by this two-for-one rule, so you are going to
have to repeal two things--like, for instance, you mentioned
that rupture detection, which is a very, very high priority of
the Congress, is still in the NPRM stage.
Mr. Elliott. Right.
Mr. DeFazio. You know, if you are going to move forward
with that, are you going to have to find two other rules to
repeal?
Mr. Elliott. Congressman, you know, one, I think, bit of
good news is, you know, at least my experience in dealing with
the regulatory reform process, is that we have been able to
basically--in the case of the gas rule, we have been actually
able to streamline the bill. It was actually getting too
complex, and I worried that it would be too complex for
operators to implement. And I do honestly think that could have
a negative impact on public safety. So no, I don't think that
has been an impediment at all.
With regards to the leak detection rule, I mean, I asked
the same questions. I mean it seems to me that this is a very
important rule. There are some people that thought, you know,
some of the elements of that rule were included in the liquid
pipeline rule.
But I am comfortable with the fact that a lot of the leak
detection, rupture detection elements that provide the greatest
protection actually go back to the original integrity
management rule that was put in place a number of years ago. So
it is not as if there aren't any rupture or leak detection
ingredients in the rulemaking. It is just that this is going to
enhance that part of the rule.
Mr. DeFazio. Well, yes. I mean the idea is, I mean, we have
had incidents--you know, Enbridge and others--where, you know,
quite a period of time elapsed between, you know, the initial
leak and their capability.
And then also automatic shutoffs. So, you know, I would
hope that both of those things are going to move along. I mean
the integrity management obviously didn't work in those cases,
and the--or the California gas explosion. So I think we need
something more than the basic integrity program to assure
public safety and also protection for the environment.
One other quick question. I don't want to overuse my time
here. PHMSA is also working on a rule to require railroads to
develop and implement comprehensive oil spill response plans.
Where are we at on that?
Mr. Elliott. So that rule is moving forward, as well. I
need to inform you all that actually I am recused from that
rule, but I can give you my perspective.
That rule is something very near and dear to my heart,
after spending 40 years in the railroad. I am proud of the work
that we did at the railroad that I worked on in developing a
very solid, comprehensive spill plan. I think it is something
that all railroads need.
I do understand the nuances that came into play after we
started moving unit trains of petroleum crude oil and ethanol.
So I can assure you, and the team at PHMSA understands that
this is a rule that we are moving through pretty quickly. It
was one that was--I wouldn't say it was on a back burner, but
it is now on a front burner, sir.
Mr. DeFazio. OK, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Denham. Mr. Shuster?
Mr. Shuster. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Elliott, for being here today. And I know
you have been there several months, and I think I have seen a
pickup in the pace of some of these things moving. But as
Chairman Denham and I think Mr. DeFazio expressed, there is
bipartisan concern and frustration. So again, we want to
encourage you to move forward. And I think, as Chairman Denham
said, if there is something we can do legislatively to assist,
we are standing ready, willing, and able to do that.
In the 2011 bill, one of the priorities that I had in the
bill was to set up training facilities across the United
States. I know you set up one in Oklahoma City. And by all
accounts and reports it is producing, it has been successful, I
think. And I just wanted to know the proliferation of pipelines
throughout the Northeast, and hopefully into the New England
States, if we can get New York to finally get off their hands
and get that gas to New England.
Are there any plans for establishing other training
facilities? And I know Pennsylvania is very, very interested in
working in--quite frankly, it was the Pennsylvania Public
Utility Commission that came to me with that idea, and it
seemed like a good idea. So can you address that?
Mr. Elliott. So, Mr. Chairman, good morning. It is very
good to see you today.
Training and education of our inspectors, as well as the
broader emergency response community is something that I
strongly believe----
Mr. Shuster. Can you pull your mic a little closer to you?
The whole box. The whole box will move. Thanks.
Mr. Elliott. You are correct about our training facility in
Oklahoma City. I mentioned in my oral comments that I do think
it is a world-class facility. It just received accreditation,
international accreditation, so that we can start issuing
credits for the training that we do.
But to answer your question, I think it is something that
we talk about regularly, and I met with some of the leadership
of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission back in February
at their conference. My real concern is making sure that if we
move away from doing training at other than the Oklahoma
training facility, where we bring in our Federal and State
inspectors now, to ensure that same level of training that we
can transfer to remote sites.
And the reason that I say that is because if we can't, if
somehow we are providing substandard training to the
inspectors, then, to me, that has a direct impact on public
safety because the inspectors are not providing the same level
of public safety.
So the answer is we are looking into it. But I have to
understand better how we can take this world-class training
that we are doing in Oklahoma City and transfer that to remote
facilities, if we can do that at all.
I do understand the convenience of it when we met with the
Pennsylvania delegation. You know, one of their big concerns
was about the level of convenience, having people go out to
Oklahoma City. But right now that is the place to go, because
we know the consistency of the training out there.
And our goal is to make sure that every State and every
Federal inspector has the possible best training, whether or
not it is for liquid, gas, or underground storage facilities.
And as soon as we can figure out how to bottle that and move it
someplace else, we can do that.
Mr. Shuster. Well, I appreciate that you want to make sure
that the training is world class, and so, as you move forward,
I know that Pennsylvania and many of the other mid-Atlantic
States are very interested in that, because again there is a
convenience that people don't have to fly halfway across the
country.
And training for pipeline inspections is pipeline
inspection with a State inspector or a Federal inspector,
basically, is that correct?
Mr. Elliott. Say that again, sir.
Mr. Shuster. If a State inspector and a Federal inspector--
they are basically--a pipeline is a pipeline to--you know,
different pipelines, but their training should be identical,
correct?
Mr. Elliott. It is very similar, yes.
Mr. Shuster. OK, all right. And the second question I have
is in the 2016 bill that Mr. Denham shepherded through to law,
section 16 provides for an entity subject to the order--an
opportunity for a petition and review of an administrative law
judge under the emergency order authority, but the final
regulation, I don't believe, is done yet. Will you be including
in that to allow for the petition for review by an
administrative law judge, as required by the statute?
Mr. Elliott. Chairman Shuster, thank you for the question.
So that rule is in the final rule stage, and the answer to your
question is yes, it does have the provision that would allow
review by an administrative law judge.
Mr. Shuster. Right, right. And then, just finally, a
comment that I know that many of the pipeline companies around
the country are developing and implementing, or they want to
implement new technologies. Their big concern is, though, going
out and spending millions of dollars to deploy this new
technology and make this pipeline safer, and PHMSA's not
keeping up with them. And their concern is they go out and put
this money out there, and then PHMSA makes a rulemaking and
they have got to go back and redo what they have already done.
Again, that is a great concern, I know, from industry, and
something that I hope you and your folks at PHMSA are going to
keep your eye on that ball. Because, again, that would be not a
good thing to spend money on those types of technologies and
those kinds of safety improvements and then just having to redo
them. So again, your attention to that would be greatly
appreciated, from our standpoint.
Mr. Elliott. Well, Chairman, we are addressing that, and I
share that exact concern, having gone out to see just how
quickly the safety technology is advancing in the pipeline
industry.
You know, and I use the analogy--it was very similar in the
railroad side, and I basically say in the not too distant
future the technology will be there to preclude, you know, a
lot of these catastrophic incidents from ever occurring. We
have to be smart enough to get out of the way of that----
Mr. Shuster. Right.
Mr. Elliott [continuing]. Smart technology.
Mr. Shuster. Great. Thank you very much.
Mr. Denham. Mr. Capuano?
Mr. Capuano. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, Mr. Elliott.
Mr. Elliott, you have enough staffing over at PHMSA to get
your job done?
Mr. Elliott. Yes, we do. I will tell you when I came on
board I was a bit concerned when I was getting my initial
briefs. We had 40 vacancies, and most of those were in field
inspection positions. The answer is why do we have so many
vacancies is, as you might imagine, on the pipeline side, where
we----
Mr. Capuano. That is fair. But you have enough staffing to
get your job----
Mr. Elliott. We do. And I will tell you that----
Mr. Capuano. Fair enough. You have enough funding for that
staffing, and for the things you need to do?
Mr. Elliott. We do right now.
Mr. Capuano. Yes, but how is your relationship with OMB?
Mr. Elliott. I think the relationship is fine.
Mr. Capuano. OK.
Mr. Elliott. I mean, I think they----
Mr. Capuano. So you have enough staffing, you have enough
funding.
Mr. Elliott. We do.
Mr. Capuano. You get along with OMB. Well, and again, I
don't--I am not even sure I can ask you this question, because
you haven't been there long enough. But, of course, that leads
to the question if you have enough staffing, you have enough
funding, you get along with OMB, what is taking so long?
And I don't really want to ask you, because, you know, you
haven't been there long enough. I appreciate that. I am not
going to blame you. What about some of the guys behind you? Had
they been there long enough to answer the question? Because
there has got to be someone there who has been there more than
a couple of months.
Mr. Elliott. Well, Congressman, I believe that a good part
of the staff at PHMSA shares the same frustration you do and
that I do about moving regulations through----
Mr. Capuano. Well, I understand that. But--I mean I get all
that. But, you know, come on, 8 years? Eight years. And we are
not talking about small, unimportant things.
We are talking about a regulation talking about what is the
maximum pressure that can be used in a pipeline. I think that
is kind of important, and I don't know a whole lot about
pipelines. I just know if you put too much pressure in a
balloon, it pops. And I assume the same thing happens with
pipelines.
We are talking about pipelines' automatic or remote shutoff
valves. Why? Because pipelines are pretty long and they go
through long areas where there is nobody there. And if you
don't have those, somebody has to get in the truck and drive
for hours to go shut off a valve that has gone pop.
Those are the kinds of regulations we are talking about,
not small, little things. And you are telling me we have enough
staffing, you have enough funding, you get along with OMB. I
don't understand the problem.
And the reason I ask is because we go through this every
once in a while. PHMSA is a relatively new agency. I know you
know that. Reauthorization is coming up, I think, next year. I
am trying to ask myself why should I have an agency that I
actually believe in. I think it is the right thing to have
PHMSA, but if you are not doing your job, why bother? And if I
do have you, why shouldn't we tie your funding to actually
getting some of the job done?
Now, again, I am not going to sit here and argue about
regulations that are 6 months overdue. Fine, I get all that.
Eight years? Eight years for not just one difficult regulation,
but for multiple.
And again, I don't want to blame you, you haven't been
there 8 years. Is there anybody who has been there for 8 years?
Mr. Elliott. Yes, there is a number of staff that have been
there 8 years.
Mr. Capuano. I am a little bit more than frustrated, to be
honest with you. I am kind of angry. I would rather be sitting
here fighting with you about the substance of your regulations
that maybe I don't like, or whatever. But I can't even do that.
Honestly, when you want to build pipelines it makes my job
darn near impossible to look at my constituents and say,
``Trust PHMSA, trust somebody that your safety is good,'' when
I don't have a regulation that says what is too much to put
into the pipeline, when I don't have a regulation that says how
we are going to turn these things off when they do fail, when I
don't have an agency that sits there and tells me something on
the order of 35 to 50 percent of the accidents we have had are
preventable.
It feels like nobody cares. Now, I know that is an
overstatement, and I actually think you care, and I actually
like PHMSA. I like, when you do stuff, you seem to do it pretty
well. But it seems like when you don't want to do stuff, you
just don't do it. And for me, that kind of bodes poorly for
reauthorization. It means I am going to be looking at ways to
get you to do your job.
Now, don't get me wrong. I am hoping, when reauth comes
around, that these are done, and you can sit there and say,
``Congressman, we did them all,'' and I am going to clap, and
that is great, and let's move forward. But if not, of course,
by that time I will be sitting in the big chair where Mr.
Denham is.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Capuano. That is called optimism. And when we are, we
are going to have a different conversation.
Again, I know you are new, and I don't mean to beat you up,
but you knew this was coming. It is not what you do, it is what
you don't do that you haven't been asked to do, you have been
required to do. These are not requests.
And, by the way, mandates from Congress are exempted from
the President's own Executive order, that two-for-one nonsense.
If you got an old regulation, you should repeal it anyway. You
shouldn't have to be told by daddy to repeal something that is
no longer useful. Those are exempt.
I appreciate you being here today and I appreciate the
chairman's tolerance.
Mr. Elliott. Congressman, my job, my responsibility, is to
make you feel good about PHMSA again.
Mr. Capuano. I hope so. Good.
Mr. Denham. Thank you. Mr. Faso, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Faso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Elliott, the concern that I have is along the lines
with what Mr. Capuano was expressing in his very expressive
way: the delay on the hazardous liquid rule, for instance.
I represent a district in upstate New York that includes,
among the 11 counties I represent, Schoharie County, where in
1991 there was an explosion along a propane gas line in
Blenheim, New York, that killed two people. And obviously, you
can't go to that community today and talk about pipelines
without many people having a very vivid recollection of that.
So I would like you--you don't have to respond on this
today, unless you can, but I would like to know the status of
the regulatory oversight on that particular line, and
expressing to you my concern with additional delay. Because the
automatic shutoff valves and the leak detection systems--this
is quite an old system that we have in that part of our State,
and it is vitally important, I think, that people be reassured
as to the safety of that system, and that the Federal and State
agencies are doing what they can to ensure that incidents like
that are not going to occur in the future, and that we are
making every effort to ensure that incidents like that don't
occur in the future.
Mr. Elliott. Thank you, Congressman, we will look into that
and make sure that we respond back to you. I do share your
concerns. In my railroad days, having spent a lot of time up in
your neck of the woods, any incident is an incident that we
don't want to have, especially those that end up resulting in
casualties, including injuries and fatalities. And we will look
closely at what we can continue to do to improve the safety of
transmission, distribution, and gathering lines.
I have talked a little bit about it through some of the
research and development that we are trying to put in place
that will help us look over the horizon on what is the next
best technology. And I do think that the integrity management
systems, the safety management systems that we talk regularly
about and enforce with the operators are making some headway.
And then I do think it is the quality of the inspectors
that are out there working with the operators every day and in
the communities such as yours to make sure that we keep them as
safe as possible.
But I do share your concern.
Mr. Faso. Thank you. I look forward to hearing back from
you on that particular topic. Thank you so much.
Mr. Elliott. Thank you, Congressman.
[The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
indicated that it has provided Congressman Faso with the
information he requested.]
Mr. Faso. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Denham. Ms. Esty, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Esty. Thank you very much, and I appreciate you being
with us here today. You understand the high level of
frustration here. And that is concern. I mean it is not
frustration about our prerogatives being disrespected. This is
about the people we represent.
Sixty-four percent of energy in this country is carried
through pipelines, 64 percent. PHMSA reported 649 pipeline
incidents last year, 649, half of which were designated serious
or significant, resulting in 22 fatalities of people we
represent, 35 injuries, and more than $242 million in damages.
The failure to implement these mandated requirements results in
deaths.
When I was serving in the State legislature, we had a new
natural gas plant explode in Connecticut for failure to follow
proper procedures. Six people lost their lives.
So we need to know what exactly is the holdup here. What
possibly can be--if you have got--again, as Mr. Capuano said,
you have enough funding, you have the resources. Then why is
this not happening? Because the consequences at a time when we
are expanding pipelines--right?
This administration has a commitment to expand resources
and energy production in the United States. Almost all of that
is flowing through pipelines. So you can understand we have
extremely severe concern about the consequences of 6, 7, 8-
year-old mandates that have yet to be implemented. So we are
facing a really serious question here of how we do our duty in
oversight and in resourcing your agency to protect the American
people.
So again, I would ask what exactly is the holdup?
Mr. Elliott. Congresswoman, I share your concerns and thank
you for the question.
I can't put my finger on any one item or thing that is the
holdup. I can only tell you that we will continue to work very,
very hard to move these very meaningful regulations through to
conclusion.
And as I said in my comments, I think it is going to take
more than just the regulations, though. I think it is going to
take continued conversation with all the shareholders--the
stakeholders, the public, industry, and other Government
agencies to make sure that we get that last bit of safety.
I mean, as much as we talk about the incidents that occur,
and they seem to be, when we hear them, to be an alarming
number, it is still the safest way to move energy products in
this country. What my job is, what the job of PHMSA is, is to
work with you all to make sure that we can get that last little
bit of safety. Unfortunately, what we see today are not maybe
some of the minor incidents that were of large number, but now
what we are seeing, unfortunately, might be more of those less-
frequent but very high-consequence kind of incidents that do
create casualties. That is what I am focused on, that is what
the team at PHMSA is focused on.
So again, my job is to make you and the members of the
subcommittee believe in PHMSA again through action.
Ms. Esty. Well, I will tell you. In New England we have a
real critical shortage. And there are efforts to try to expand
pipelines. It is very hard for me to go to my constituents and
urge them to do this when we have congressionally mandated
safety regulations that have not even been introduced or
promulgated for years. How can I go to my constituents and say,
``We are from the Government, trust us''? We can't do that,
responsibly.
And so I will tell you there is a great deal of concern. We
are facing energy shortages and price hikes in my part of the
country, in my State. And yet, at the same time, we are facing
regulations that have been mandated and aren't in place.
So if you need more people, tell us, because asking for
more time is--we are impatient because we are concerned about
the safety of the people we represent. So again, I would urge
you in the strongest possible terms to identify for us what we
can do to move this forward, because, truly, the ball is in
your court, and we are not patient at this point.
Thank you. I realize you haven't been here long. But again,
this needs to be done, and it is now your responsibility to do
so.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Elliott. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Ms. Esty.
Mr. Gallagher, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Elliott. As a new member of the committee, I
look forward to working with you.
So PHMSA has been exploring changes to the gas transmission
integrity management program and gathering of pipeline
regulations since 2011. These changes were supposed to be
finalized in a single rulemaking that was supposed to be issued
this summer, if I am understanding this correctly. However, a
couple months ago PHMSA split that single rulemaking into three
separate rules covering separate gathering and transmission
pipeline issues with revised publication dates of 2019.
So just so I understand it, why did PHMSA split that
rulemaking at this late stage?
Mr. Elliott. Congressman, thank you for the question. The
answer to the question is the fact that, to move that
regulation along in as unwieldy of a State that it was, would
cause even further delay.
The way that we have broken the rule into three parts, the
first two deal with transmission lines, the third deals with
gathering line. But the first two will deal with the two open
mandates, as well as an--NTSB recommendations. So the plan is
we are going to move them all forward, but that part of the
rule now that has the open mandates and the recommendations is
the one that we are going to give the most attention to.
What I don't want to convey is the belief that just because
we have split that rule into three, that we are not going to
continue to move the other parts of the rule through as quickly
as possible. We are going to do that. It is just going to make
it more manageable for us to move it through the process.
Mr. Gallagher. Why, then, did the publication dates get
pushed out an entire year?
Mr. Elliott. I will have to look into that. I am not sure
of the exact reasons that the dates have been pushed out.
[The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
indicated that it has provided Congressman Gallagher with the
information he requested.]
Mr. Gallagher. OK. I look forward to following up with you
on that.
And then, is PHMSA moving forward on the pipeline valve and
rupture detection rulemaking?
Mr. Elliott. Yes, we are. And as I had mentioned earlier,
of the three priority regulations, the liquid rule, the gas
rule, and the rupture detection rule, that is the one that is
probably the furthest behind at the notice of proposed
rulemaking stage. But we are going to fast-track that the best
that we can.
But again, I also want to remind you that a lot of the
integrity management regulations cover a lot of the leak and
rupture detection. This will modernize it, it will create some
additional safety measures, but it is not by any means the only
leak and detection rules that we have.
Mr. Gallagher. Yes, can you give me an example of the
current policies that are in place to address rupture detection
in pipelines?
Mr. Elliott. Well, I think perhaps, for me, based on some
of my experience, the best example is the modernization of a
number of the oil and gas control sites. I have been out in my
time at PHMSA to look at those sites, and I am very impressed
with the continuing improvements in the software that the
control rooms that monitor the flow of both gas and liquid
pipelines--the ability to identify any anomaly that would
indicate either a leak or a rupture.
And again, as I said, I have been a long-time believer in
the fact that I think technology and automation is where we are
going to get to the next levels of safety. But to me, that is
where I have been the most impressed with the work that I am
seeing done in the control rooms.
Mr. Gallagher. Well, I look forward to following up on that
one issue, and thank you. And I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. Denham. Mr. Sires, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sires. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for being
here.
I represent New Jersey, probably the most congested area in
the country. Just to give you an idea, I live in a town that is
1 square mile, it has got 51,000 people on it. OK? Hoboken, New
Jersey, has another 1 square mile, or 50,000 people.
A few years ago we had an incident in Edison, New Jersey.
And we found out that the pipe was 3 feet wide, and it was
right next to an apartment complex. They said it was deep
enough, but I don't know how you deal with these pipes that are
so big and so large next to apartment complexes. And the
maintenance of them, since it was so deep I don't know how much
maintenance they did on that pipe when it blew up.
And quite frankly, I have sat across people that want to
put pipelines in my community when I was mayor, and the
district--it is one of these districts where you put a shovel
in the ground, you are bound to hit a cable or a water pipe
or--but they dangle money in front of these communities. And I
get concerned that maybe it is not as large as this 3-foot
pipe. Some of these are very close to the top of the ground.
And I am one that feels that these regulations that we have
tried to implement since 2011, I think it is needed. So when I
keep hearing all the time that we expedite, that we are working
on it, and we are working on the regulation, and we are moving
quickly, or we are streamlining this, I just hope it doesn't
take another big blowup like what happened in Edison for you to
move on some of these regulations, because it is going to be
catastrophic.
And half of these pipes don't even serve New Jersey, they
come from Texas right into New York. We are just what they call
interlace piping. Is that the proper word that you use in the
industry? They all come in, and they fill in, and they go into
another one.
And the other concern that I have, which has always been a
concern, is about the communications between the local
firefighters and the people who put the pipe, and where the
shutoff valves are. I don't know if the industry does that to a
degree that is satisfactory to the communities that they run
through, because they have to be aware of where the shutoff
valves are. They have to be aware that these pipes are being
maintained. And they have to communicate with the local
firefighters because, at the end of the day, they are the first
respondents.
So all these safety features that we are talking here are
extremely important for a district that is so congested. So I
would hope that you would move quickly on some of these things,
especially the ones that are the most important for the safety
of these pipes.
And I really don't have any particular question, other than
try to get you to move on the safety of these pipes. Can you
imagine these pipes, 3 feet wide, next to an apartment complex?
Nobody knew it was there. That is another factor. I think
they keep it quiet half of the time, so they don't tell the
community, so they come out to the town meetings and put
pressure on the local officials not to allow it. And you know,
and quite frankly, they are run through, for example, Jersey
City, right under the Hudson River, right into New York.
So, sir, I will--you know, I will ask you--I know you have
only been there 7 months, but, quite frankly, this is something
that has to be addressed before there is another incident and
then everybody reacts. But by that time it is too late.
Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Sires.
Mr. Babin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Dr. Babin. Yes, sir.
Thank you very much for being here, Mr. Elliott. Mr.
Elliott, now that you have been at PHMSA for a few months, what
are your biggest priorities?
And I was here earlier, then I had to leave to go to
another hearing, and back in here. If you have already talked
about this, please let me know. But what are your biggest
priorities as it relates to the outstanding rulemakings at
PHMSA? What are your number one, two, three, on down?
Mr. Elliott. Congressman Babin, thank you for the question.
They are all important. And I think the comments of the
subcommittee underscore the sense of urgency, even more so now,
that we need to have in moving those mandates forward.
I do think that, you know, focusing primarily on moving the
safety of liquid pipeline and the safety of gas transmission
pipelines are my primary top goals. I think, by moving those
forward, we get the best success in closing a number of open
mandates, as well as NTSB and GAO recommendations.
But I know there is a lot more behind there that we have to
do, and I think, you know, kind of an equal priority is the
fact that we can't lose our momentum. As I said earlier, I
think we have to prove by our actions, not our words, that we
are capable of moving forward with open mandates and with other
rules and standards that promote the safety of moving energy
products throughout this country. We all know that we need that
energy to do that.
So--and I think, you know, another priority is making sure
that we have the most professional staff available, especially
in the inspection side of PHMSA, to make sure that each and
every day, when our inspection and investigation staff is out
in the field, that we know that we have got the best talent
available out there, working with the operators to ensure that
the Nation's pipeline system stays as safe as possible.
Dr. Babin. Right, OK. Thank you. Have you had the
opportunity to go into the field and to see pipeline operations
firsthand? Have you had that opportunity yet?
Mr. Elliott. Congressman, thank you for that question, too.
I am an old railroader. I am my happiest when I have my boots
and hardhat on, I really am. And fortunately, the last few
months I have been able to get out and I have traveled a lot. I
have--you know, to Pennsylvania to see how natural gas pipeline
is being installed, so I can actually get in a ditch and see
it. Thanks to my colleagues from Williams for allowing me to do
that.
You know, in going to places, too, I think that, you know,
seeing firsthand and, you know, being able to go up to
Bellingham and talk to Carl Weimer and his team about that, I
mean, that is a humbling experience.
Dr. Babin. Right.
Mr. Elliott. You know, I went, in my 40 years in the
railroad, to a lot of derailments, and I saw a lot of impact to
communities and to the environment. But I am not sure, after
hearing the folks up there relive the events of 1999 that
anything compares to something of that magnitude.
And I will tell you, too, that, you know, trips to Texas to
see pipeline operations and then to see the work of the
pipeline industry in trying to push as fast as they can safety
technology and inline inspection devices, it was really
important for me to see and be able to talk to the vendors to
try to understand what is on their horizon for them, what is
the next best safety technology. So----
Dr. Babin. Well, I was going to ask you if you had met with
stakeholders and community leaders, and it sounds like you
have. And is that accurate?
Mr. Elliott. Some, but not enough. I mean I think, as my
travels continue this year, it is really getting out to talk
more to the public-sector side stakeholders.
I have had the great pleasure to talk to the members of our
public information sharing working group, the members of our
gas and pipeline advisory groups. I have been out to a number
of trade association conferences. So I have had a chance to
talk to stakeholders. I think what I need to do is kind of
balance that with talking more to some of the folks in the
local communities.
Dr. Babin. Well, you mentioned Texas. And, of course, my
district is from Houston to Louisiana, and that portion of
Texas. It has the largest pipeline infrastructure in the
Nation, more than 439,771 miles of pipeline, representing about
one-sixth of the total pipeline mileage of the entire country,
a substantial portion of which is in the southeast Texas coast
that Congressman Weber and I share and represent. And I would
like to personally invite you to come visit our region at your
next available opportunity.
Mr. Elliott. Thank you, Congressman. I will tell you that I
saw more various types of pipe in the supply yards in 5 minutes
than I had in all my life before I went to see the pipeline
system in Houston. Thank you.
Dr. Babin. Yes, sir. Thank you very much.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Shuster [presiding]. I thank the gentleman. Mr.
Garamendi is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Garamendi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Elliott, thank you very much for your testimony and for
appearing today. I know that you have a difficult task,
catching up with the history of noncompliance by your agency.
I was here for the hearings in 2010, following the San
Bruno. And these photos were displayed at that time. That is a
picture of the actual explosion. That is the 100- by 28-foot
crater that was created. And those are the homes. [Indicating
photographs.] And I suppose you might find the--well, we will
just say those are the homes that were burned. It has been 8
years, just short of 8 years since that explosion.
The mandate in the 2010 law has not yet been completed. We
remain extremely concerned about this. The automatic shutoff,
the detection systems are known. They have existed for years.
Pipeline companies across the Nation do employ automatic
shutoffs and remote shutoff valves. But yet there is no
regulation that requires that they be in place for 3-foot
diameter pipe that Mr. Sires was talking about a moment ago, or
for other pipelines across the Nation that are in high-hazard
or high-explosive zones.
Could you tell me what the status is of the specific
regulations on shutoff valves, remote and automatic, and on the
pressure requirement systems?
Mr. Elliott. Congressman, yes. And thank you for your
question. And, you know, the San Bruno incident also was the
same year that we had a serious incident in Michigan, in the
Kalamazoo----
Mr. Garamendi. Serious in that eight people died.
Mr. Elliott. Yes, and 51 injured, I believe, too, in there.
So as I had mentioned earlier, the status of the rupture
detection valve rule is a bit behind the liquid and gas rules.
It is in the notice of proposed----
Mr. Garamendi. Could you define ``bit behind''?
Mr. Elliott. Well, it is in the notice of proposed
rulemaking stage, so I cannot say specifically, time-wise, how
far behind. But----
Mr. Garamendi. Is there any reason you do not have a
timeline for the rulemaking process?
Mr. Elliott. I just do not have enough understanding of
where we are at in the notice of proposed rulemaking drafting.
And once we can complete that, then I can provide a better
timeline.
Mr. Garamendi. You have been there 7 months, and we
understand that is a short period of time.
If you do not have a calendar for the 2018-2019 year, I
will be happy to deliver one to your office. We have
congressional calendars that we hand out to our constituents. I
will be happy to deliver you one. Could you put on that
calendar a specific date on which you will address this issue?
Mr. Elliott. I understand your concern, Congressman, and we
will----
Mr. Garamendi. I will have a calendar in your office.
Perhaps you can----
Mr. Elliott. I do.
Mr. Garamendi [continuing]. Return it to me with a circle
around the dates in which you will begin the process.
Mr. Elliott. I----
Mr. Garamendi. Is that possible?
Mr. Elliott. Congressman, you have my word that we will
move that rulemaking through as quickly as we can.
Mr. Garamendi. No, I want a calendar date.
Mr. Elliott. I can't do that, sir. I can't move it----
Mr. Garamendi. Why?
Mr. Elliott. Because I just don't know what calendar date
it would be.
Mr. Garamendi. Why don't you know when you can get this
thing underway?
Mr. Elliott. Congressman, I appreciate your concern. We
will work as quickly as we can to move that rulemaking through.
Mr. Garamendi. I am going to be on you like a bad spell.
And I can assure you that the California delegation will be
there, also. It was September 9th, 2010. Eight people died.
Thirty-eight homes were destroyed. And you don't have a
calendar. That is not acceptable, sir. It is simply not
acceptable.
A final rule, not on this particular issue, but on liquid,
hazardous liquid pipelines, was completed, was to go into the
Federal Register on January 13, 2017. And this administration
pulled that back the very first day it came into office. What
is the status of that particular regulation?
Mr. Elliott. Congressman, that rule is in the final rule
stage, and we hope to move that forward as quickly as possible,
too.
Mr. Garamendi. Do you have a date?
Mr. Elliott. No, sir. I do not.
Mr. Garamendi. You don't have a calendar, either?
Mr. Elliott. I do not have a date for the----
Mr. Garamendi. Perhaps you can have two circles, a red and
a black circle around a specific date of when you will get the
job done.
You have shined us on. You and your predecessors have
shined this committee on for 8 years. And it is over, sir. Give
us a calendar date on when you are going to begin the process
to move the process along, and when it will be completed.
I am out of time. I yield back.
And a calendar will be in your office later today.
Mr. Elliott. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Shuster. Mr. Perry is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Perry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Elliott,
for your presence. Over here, way on the right, here--so to
speak.
In your experience, are all 50 States--just so to speak--
are all 50 States equal in quality in their regulation of
interstate pipeline facilities?
And let me just maybe add some context to that. You know, I
am from Pennsylvania. We have got a lot of resources, and we
have got a lot of old infrastructure. And one of the struggles
we are having right now--and we have had for some time--is to
get our product to market. And some States aren't as--and God
bless them. We have the Constitution and they have voters, and,
you know, they make decisions for their States. But depending
on where they are located, they are in between other States
that would like to have access to what Pennsylvania has.
And I know that maybe--unfortunately, I am conflating
construction and regulation with operation and--but I will tell
you my constituents--and I don't think most people see it any--
they just see a pipeline, or they see a lack of a pipeline.
And I am sure you know we had an incident with a pipeline
running across part of the district in south-central
Pennsylvania, and the Department of Environmental Protection
got involved with a contractor with some infractions, and so on
and so forth, and that further imperils people's feeling of
security and satisfaction with pipelines, in general, right?
They don't differentiate between construction and operation,
right?
But I am just wondering. Are they generally equal in their
quality of regulation and enforcement of those things? And is
there something that the Federal Government should be doing,
could be doing in keeping with the Constitution and the States'
10th Amendment rights, but yet to, you know, move interstate
commerce to where it needs to be going?
Mr. Elliott. Congressman, thank you for the question. I
would say that, you know, there is consistency between the
States. But I think, to answer the very specific nature of your
question, I would like to go back and talk to my staff about it
and get a more detailed response and respond back to you, if I
might.
[The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
indicated that it has provided Congressman Perry with the
information he requested.]
Mr. Perry. Well, I would appreciate that. And like I said,
just with the understanding that this is specific, and you
obviously know your job very well, and you are here testifying
on it today, but most people driving up and down the highway,
looking at farm fields and what have you, they see pipeline,
whether they see markers or whether they see construction, and
they don't differentiate between operation and construction,
but they don't want problems, right? They want to make sure
that they can buy what is coming through the pipeline, and they
understand it has got to get to places for refining and other
things.
But they want to make sure that it is safe, and they are
counting on you and us to make sure that we are respecting
individual property rights and States rights, but at the same
time the interstate commerce that needs to happen, so that
States that are landlocked out of--and I am not going to name
any here, but I suspect you can imagine where we are headed
here--but States are landlocked out of having the provisions
that they want and need, because of States in the way.
And what is the appropriate response to that? And is there
a regulatory response, or is there something else that Congress
needs to be doing, or that States need to be doing? And I would
like to have you fashion your staff's answers, so to speak, in
that kind of vein, if you would, please. And I appreciate your
presence here.
Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Mr. Shuster. I thank the gentleman and recognize Mrs.
Napolitano for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr.
Administrator Elliott.
My California colleagues, Representative Carbajal and
Senator Feinstein wrote a letter to you on May 17th requesting
an update on the status of the rulemaking regarding automatic
and remote control shutoff valves. As you are aware, this
happened in 2015 that we had the Refugio oil spill in Santa
Barbara.
Mr. Elliott. Yes.
Mrs. Napolitano. Major disaster, 100,000 gallons of oil
spilled into the ocean and shut down commercial fisheries.
The shutoff valves and leak detection technology could have
prevented the environmental and public health damage caused by
the tragedy. Could you give me the status of that rulemaking,
and when you can expect to answer that letter?
Mr. Elliott. Congresswoman, thank you. I am aware of the
letter that came in, and we are preparing the response for that
letter.
With regards to the rulemaking, again, the leak detection
rulemaking is one that we are going to work quickly on. It is
in the notice of proposed rulemaking stage. We have some work
to do on it in order to get it to the final rule stage. But it
is my pledge to you that we will continue to move forward on
that rulemaking as quickly as we can, ma'am.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, I look forward to your answer, sir.
And I would like to have a copy of that letter to Mr. Carbajal
and Senator Feinstein.
Mr. Elliott, because of your background in the railroad
industry--which you have pointed out--and your current
position, I have a question regarding the intersection of
pipeline safety and railroad operations.
And I'm happy to report that after 8 years of negotiation
between Kinder Morgan Pipeline Company and Union Pacific, Cal
Poly Pomona University, and the Alameda Corridor East Public
Transportation Agency in my district, two rail grade crossings
are being closed because of a new division track for Union
Pacific. The project will reduce congestion, reduce smog, and
increase public safety by allowing the residents in the valley
to travel on a major corridor without stopping at two previous
railroad crossings.
The project was held up for 8 years because the new rail
line ran over Kinder Morgan pipeline, and there was a
disagreement between Union Pacific and Kinder Morgan on the
level of protection needed for the pipeline--one type of cement
versus another.
Are you aware of these ongoing disagreements between
railroads and pipeline companies across the country on the
level of safety when they cross? And what would you do to solve
these issues, to speed up the projects, and improve the safety?
Mr. Elliott. Congresswoman, thank you for your question.
I will tell you, from my railroad experience, that any time
we can close a highway railroad grade crossing, that is a good
thing because it promotes safety.
And I can also tell you from my railroad experience
managing environmental matters for the railroad, we were often
in dialogue with pipeline operators to ensure the safety of
pipelines underneath the railroad right-of-ways.
And I think we saw that progress over the years, and I
think we saw safety improve, as well, with the advent of
horizontal directional drilling that allowed the pipelines to
actually go further underneath the right-of-ways. As you know
probably from your experience, our concern in the railroad is
the vibration underneath the railroad bed. So we were always
concerned about making sure that the pipes were far enough down
that that vibration didn't impact the lines.
I would expect that the railroads today continue to have
good dialogue with their counterparts at the oil and gas
companies to make sure that they are having those crossings as
safe as possible.
[The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
indicated that it has provided Congresswoman Napolitano with a
copy of the letter that she requested.]
Mrs. Napolitano. But are you addressing those issues?
Mr. Elliott. I will have to look more into that to see if
we have got any current issues dealing with both oil and gas
pipeline operators and the railroads, so--and I might--I can
consult with my colleagues over at the Federal Railroad
Administration.
Mrs. Napolitano. Would you kindly let this committee know?
Because that is an important issue when it has impact on public
safety.
Mr. Elliott. Yes. Yes, ma'am, we will let you know.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Mitchell [presiding]. Thank you. The Chair recognizes
himself for 5 minutes.
You are aware of the Line 5 pipeline in Michigan, and some
of the challenges we have had with that, Mr. Elliott?
Mr. Elliott. I am.
Mr. Mitchell. One of the challenges we face is the delay in
regulations while they try to comply both in terms of what the
regulatory requirements are, as well as what the public
perception of the safety of that pipeline is.
I am concerned. I want you to understand that. On a
bipartisan basis the delays are really causing a great deal of
distress of the public, as well as the State agencies to ensure
full compliance in a safe environment.
So let me go back around about that question again. What do
we do about ensuring that we can give a timeline to folks of
what the safety regulations will be, so they are out for review
and we can address those?
Mr. Elliott. Congressman, thank you for the question. I
think I have a newfound appreciation for the subcommittee's
sense of urgency on this issue. I have had the pleasure to
speak with some of you individually. But collectively your
concerns are magnified. And I think I understand that.
We continue to do everything that we can within PHMSA to
move the issues and prepare the regulations, those things under
our control. We have had very good discussions with the
Department about the need to move some of these mandates
forward, and they are very responsive to that. And as you know,
there are multiple steps in the process.
But I can assure you that, while I can't provide a specific
date or a time, that with the liquid rule and the gas rule and
the rupture detection rule, those will move as quickly as we
possibly can move them.
Mr. Mitchell. Well, let me stop you because I--you are
aware of the leak that we had in the Kalamazoo River----
Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mitchell [continuing]. A few years back. Are you aware
of the anchor strike on the pipeline crossing the Sioux
Straits? Are you aware of that? And, in fact, the pipeline was
dented. It was not--you are aware of that, as well?
Mr. Elliott. Yes, I have had numerous conversations with
the executives at Enbridge on that issue, yes.
Mr. Mitchell. And I understand the economic importance of
the Line 5 in the State, in my district. It crosses the St.
Clair River in my district, it crosses Port Huron into Sarnia.
So it is not that I am immune to what the issues are. But the
reality is a lack of clear guidance as to whether the current
technology is acceptable that is in place. Will we need to
change that? It is really troublesome for both the State to
ensure compliance, the company, Enbridge, as you know, as well
as the public impression.
So, while I appreciate your comments regarding we will do
the best we can, in terms of timing, I would join my colleague,
Mr. Garamendi, to say, you know, jointly, I am sure we can give
you a calendar. And at some point in time--I ran a business for
35 years. Setting a date that we are going to get something
done by matters.
So I can't encourage you enough, and your agency enough, to
say we need to set dates, we need to get the regs out, we need
to get public comment on them, and we need to take that public
comment seriously.
Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mitchell. Or we leave ourselves vulnerable.
One more question for you in the limited time I have. What
does--a little more general, what does PHMSA do with funding to
States that do not comply with safety standards in place at
this time?
Mr. Elliott. Congressman, thank you for the question. You
know, as you know, we can fund up to 80 percent of a State's
ability to conduct pipeline inspections. We have a group within
PHMSA that is specifically responsible for going to ensure the
quality, the integrity of the inspections that are done by our
State partners.
Their funding, basically, is based on their ability to show
success within the program.
Mr. Mitchell. Let me stop you there. What are the ways that
you hold States accountable if they fail to comply?
Mr. Elliott. I think we have a number of ways. But the
specifics of those, I can look further into what those items
are and get back to you.
Mr. Mitchell. Let me stop you a second. I know it has been
7 months----
Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mitchell [continuing]. And lord knows you are up to
your eyeballs. That is clear. A response of ``I think there are
ways'' troubles me a great deal. Do we not have a better idea
how we hold States accountable for funding 80 percent of the
inspection cost? Does any of your staff behind you have any
idea how we do this?
Mr. Elliott. Congressman, I am certain there are. But
again, I just don't have the specifics that would provide me to
give you a specific answer.
[The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
indicated that it has provided Congressman Mitchell with the
information he requested.]
Mr. Mitchell. Can we request that you provide something to
the committee in writing of what the specifics are, in terms of
holding them accountable and how you--if it is--funding another
mechanism?
One more quick question, if you will bear with me a moment.
How many States, last time you reviewed it, were not in
compliance?
Mr. Elliott. You know, we have a regular process that
allows us to look at State noncompliance. I don't have the
exact number that were not in compliance. I can add that to the
document----
Mr. Mitchell. When was the last time that this review was
done to determine whether States were in compliance?
Mr. Elliott. Yes. Sir, I don't know that, and I will have
to determine that and get back to you.
Mr. Mitchell. You recognize the number of times you said
``I don't know'' in the last 10 minutes, right?
Mr. Elliott. Yes.
Mr. Mitchell. I appreciate it. I will--who is next?
The Chair yields for 5 minutes to Mr. Nolan.
Mr. Nolan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I want to commend you, compliment you,
congratulate you for taking on this assignment. And you know,
looking at your background, it seems as though you have a lot
of experience in transporting hazardous materials and
compliance with regulations. And so we do have big expectations
of you, OK, and applaud you for taking on this assignment.
But as you know, in many cases, many of the companies have
already started the--and gone a long ways toward implementation
of some of these various regulations.
But you know in good Government and in good business, that
people have goals. They have a mission, they have workplans,
they have timelines. And in your case, you got a mandate to get
this done. And I want to join my colleagues here--as you will
notice, it is a very nonpartisan, very bipartisan--the concerns
that have been expressed. And I share all of them with them.
So I would just like to remind you and everybody--and I
know you know this, but to not have an estimated timeline--
nobody here expects you to be there on an exact date or a
moment in time, but we do expect the workplan, and we do expect
a timeline. And you have got the experience to put that all
together, we know that. You have done good in the past, and you
can do that for us here today.
And to do otherwise, you know, it would be hard to judge it
as anything other than irresponsible, a dereliction of duty--
worst case, malfeasance. And you do not want that to be your
legacy, because you are capable of so much more and so much
better. So I just want you to know that we are expecting a lot
out of you, and when you come back we don't want to hear ``I
don't know'' any more.
And I would just have one question. Can you give this
committee an assurance that you will put a high priority in the
planning and your operation to give us a workplan and a
timeline for implementation of these mandates?
Mr. Elliott. Congressman, thank you for the good words of
wisdom. I will tell you that in my private industry life all
those things you talked about were highly valued, and they are
the types of things that I am trying to put in place at PHMSA.
And I will continue to do that.
And, you know, I will work the best I can to create a more
structured timeline so the subcommittee has a much better
understanding of the delivery of these open mandates and other
rules and standards. I am just not to the point yet where I
can--my crystal ball doesn't allow me to be specific enough, I
think, for the satisfaction of this subcommittee. But I will
continue to work on that.
Mr. Nolan. Thank you.
Mr. Elliott. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Mitchell. The Chair will now recognize Mr. Weber for 5
minutes.
Mr. Weber. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Elliott, I am late, so I don't know if these questions
have been asked yet. So if they are redundant, please forgive
the redundancy.
Do you know what the pipeline industry itself safety rating
is?
Mr. Elliott. Congressman, it is extremely good. It is above
99.99 percent.
Mr. Weber. Above 99.99 percent? Do you know of any other
industry that has a safety rating that high?
Mr. Elliott. Well, I am happy to say that my former
industry, the railroad industry, had a safety rate of above
99.99----
Mr. Weber. Well, I think you are a little off track, now.
We are talking pipelines, not railroads. That is--you all see
that pun, see what I did there?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Weber. Yes, Elizabeth is saying she got it.
Here is my question. And it may have been asked. But I
commend the pipeline industry for that kind of safety rating.
I have the gulf coast of Texas, five ports. We produce 65
percent of the Nation's jet fuel, almost 20 percent of the
Nation's gasoline east of the Rockies. So a lot of pipelines
come in to the gulf coast of Texas.
How long have you--and I didn't get a chance to read your
bio. How long have you been at the agency?
Mr. Elliott. A little over 7 months, Congressman.
Mr. Weber. A little over 7 months?
So PHMSA has been exploring changes to the hazardous liquid
integrity management program. And again, I have not had a
chance to read through this, I was at another event.
DOT's last report on the status of significant rulemaking
show that the final rule should be issued in August. Have they
asked you--or are you still on track to publish that rule in
August?
Mr. Elliott. We continue to be optimistic that the rule
will be out--will be the first rule out. And while we can't put
a specific date on----
Mr. Weber. OK.
Mr. Elliott [continuing]. We are still shooting for a
period of time that is relatively close to what we have----
Mr. Weber. So you may be like the Senate. You will still be
working in August?
Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir.
Mr. Weber. OK. Is there a listing--I am sure there is--of
the exact materials--liquids, gases, whatever--that this rule
covers? Do you have a listing of that?
Mr. Elliott. We can provide that, yes.
Mr. Weber. Can you get that to me?
Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir.
[The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
indicated that it has provided Congressman Weber with the
information he requested.]
Mr. Weber. OK, great. That would be great.
And then you also have--in my district we have the largest
carbon capture sequestration storage facility in Port Arthur,
Texas. It was built, actually, by ARRA, American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act. And so we have some underground storage.
Is PHMSA seeking input from States and stakeholders as it
relates to underground storage on natural gas? Are you all
seeking that input?
Mr. Elliott. Congressman, we are. We have issued an interim
final rule on underground natural gas storage, and we continue
to now look at the comments that have been coming in from all
stakeholders on that interim final rule. And I am happy to say
that we have begun training State and Federal inspectors at our
training center in Oklahoma on underground natural gas storage
facilities. So we are making good progress there.
Mr. Weber. You are aware of the shale play in Texas, Eagle
Ford Shale Play, as well as other shale plays, and how Texas is
leading the other 49 lesser States in natural gas production.
And so it is a big thing for us. And as that natural gas
production in the market is like it is for natural gas, we are
now exporting so much LNG--my district is responsible for
exporting about 95 percent of the Nation's LNG, worldwide. So
it is extremely important to us.
As that production ramps up, as natural gas prices stay
low, does it give you all a little bit more impetus to try to
make sure that you keep up with this on a more frequent basis?
Are you paying close attention to the gas plays?
Mr. Elliott. Certainly, yes. I mean we have actually
reallocated resources, technical resources at PHMSA to help us
stay as current as we can on the natural gas, especially on the
export side. We continue to work closely with other regulatory
agencies, such as FERC [Federal Energy Regulatory Commission],
on the whole siting issue, as well.
Some of our natural gas rules are ones that we want to
modernize. But again, we are working hard, because we
understand the pace at which that whole sector is moving, and
we need to make sure that we can stay up to speed with that.
Mr. Weber. Is your office--since you have been there 7
months--I know there has been some questions about a lot of
some of the nominations that are not making it through the
Senate, for example--is your office adequately staffed?
Mr. Elliott. Yes, sir, it is. We have made significant
headway. As I had mentioned earlier, when I came on board we
had about 40 vacancies, and a large number of those were in the
field inspection investigation side. On the pipeline side the
number was close to 20. I am happy to say we actually have 15
offers on the table now for new pipeline inspectors.
It has been a challenge to find qualified people. But with
some changes in our recruiting process, I think we have kind of
gotten over the hump on that.
Mr. Weber. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Mitchell. The Chair recognizes Mrs. Napolitano for some
questions.
Mrs. Napolitano. Thank you, sir. Thank you for allowing me
the second go-around.
But I had one more question to add, Administrator Elliott,
that one of our priorities in the 2016 act was to ensure that
the coastal beaches and marine coastal waters are considered
unusually sensitive areas for purposes of ensuring pipelines in
these areas are governed under PHMSA's integrity management
regulations, which include inspection, repair, and maintenance.
The DOT website states that this is still in the advanced
notice of proposed rulemaking stage, and that you have 13 staff
working on it, but it is delayed due to competing priorities.
Would you explain and clarify this?
Mr. Elliott. Congresswoman, thank you for that question. I
am very aware of the need and the sense of urgency of that
rulemaking.
You know, I have been working to prioritize rulemakings,
and I have worked with my staff to make the determination to
prioritize and focus most on the mandates that really provided
the greatest level of safety.
You are correct, it is still in the advanced notice of
proposed rulemaking. We have had a public meeting on that
topic, and we are looking at the responses of that.
I think one of the difficulties in this specific rulemaking
is we are finding it difficult to actually define some of the
parameters of the Great Lakes area, as it applies to the
rulemaking. So it has been a little bit more of a challenge to
the staff, but it is something that we are going to keep
focusing on, and keep moving forward as quickly as we can.
Mrs. Napolitano. Well, you have three great areas:
Florida----
Mr. Elliott. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Napolitano [continuing]. California, and Texas that
require specific focus on these issues. Anything we can do to
ensure this moves along?
Mr. Elliott. Congresswoman, I think what you can all do for
me is just, you know, provide me with your thoughts, your
comments, your concerns. You know, I do apologize that I am
still getting up to speed on certain areas. But again, I am a
person who believes in actions and not necessarily words as
proof of what we are capable of doing at PHMSA.
Mrs. Napolitano. I am glad to hear that, sir. And we will
look forward to the answer.
Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Elliott. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Mr. Mitchell. Seeing no further questions, I want to thank
you, Administrator Elliott, for your time today, for your
testimony and feedback. They have been very helpful. And I am
sure we look forward to seeing you again in a hearing in the
future to get more feedback from you, sir. Thank you for
coming.
Mr. Elliott. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you, members of
the subcommittee.
Mr. Mitchell. I would now like to welcome--we are awaiting
votes, so we are going to introduce the next panel and,
depending on the schedule of votes, we will then proceed.
I would now like to welcome our second panel, if they want
to get settled.
[Pause.]
Mr. Mitchell. Good morning, gentlemen. It is still morning.
Thank you for coming, and I appreciate it.
I would like to welcome our second panel. We welcome today
Mr. Andrew Black, who is president and CEO of the Association
of Oil Pipe Lines.
Thank you for coming.
Mr. Robin Rorick, midstream and industry operations group
director for American Petroleum Institute.
Mr. Chad Zamarin, senior vice president of corporate
strategic development at the Williams Companies, on behalf of
the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America. That is
quite an acronym.
And Mr. Carl Weimer, executive director of the Pipeline
Safety Trust.
I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements
be included in the record.
Without objection, so ordered.
Since your written testimony has been made a part of the
record, the subcommittee would request that you limit your oral
testimony to 5 minutes.
We will kick off today with Mr. Black.
Would you please proceed?
TESTIMONY OF ANDREW J. BLACK, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ASSOCIATION OF
OIL PIPE LINES; ROBIN RORICK, GROUP DIRECTOR, MIDSTREAM AND
INDUSTRY OPERATIONS, AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE; CHAD
ZAMARIN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, CORPORATE STRATEGIC
DEVELOPMENT, THE WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC., ON BEHALF OF THE
INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; AND CARL WEIMER,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PIPELINE SAFETY TRUST
Mr. Black. Thank you. I am Andy Black, president and CEO of
the Association of Oil Pipe Lines. AOPL represents transmission
pipeline operators that deliver crude oil, refined products
like gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel, and natural gas
liquids such as propane and ethane. Ourpipelines safely deliver
more than 18 billion barrels of crude oil and energy products
per 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. Our pipelines transport products like
propane that farmers use for rural heating and crop drying, and
raw materials such as ethane that American workers use for
good-paying manufacturing jobs.
Pipelines are an exceedingly safe way to deliver the energy
America needs. As the American people debate alternatives for
transporting energy across the country from where it is
produced to where it is refined to where it is consumed, you
can know that pipelines are the safest way for the American
people to get the energy they need.
According to data collected by PHMSA, the safety of liquids
pipelines has improved dramatically over the last 5 years.
Liquid pipeline incidents impacting the public or the
environment are down 19 percent since 2013. A subcategory of
incidents impacting the public and the environment caused by
corrosion, cracking, or pipe failure are down 35 percent in
that period. Incidents impacting the public or the environment
caused by operations or maintenance failures are down 24
percent. These key performance indicators were developed
jointly by PHMSA, the Pipeline Safety Trust, and the liquids
pipeline industry, in recommendation to a response by the NTSB
to develop more meaningful metrics for tracking pipeline
safety.
Each of these safety performance metrics are included in
our annual pipeline safety excellence report we issue jointly
with the American Petroleum Institute. Self-reporting on our
industrywide performance is part of our effort to be
transparent about our safety programs and invite a conversation
on how we can best tackle remaining pipeline safety issues. We
use performance data, recommendations from regulators and
safety investigations, and lessons learned from incidents and
near misses to guide our industrywide efforts. Based on this
information, personnel from member companies participate in
nearly two dozen industrywide pipeline groups to improve
operations and safety.
We are also funding research and development on pipeline
inspection technologies, enhancing our threat detection and
response capabilities, expanding safety culture and management
systems, and boosting our emergency response capabilities.
Through our pipeline safety excellence program, member
companies have completed development of a number of 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.
We are now actively engaged in implementation efforts to
educate, encourage, and help members implement these best
practices. A prime example is API Recommended Practice 1173 for
Pipeline Safety Management Systems. Recommended by NTSB and
developed in conjunction with PHMSA and State pipeline
regulators, pipeline safety management systems are helping
pipeline operators comprehensively and holistically manage all
the safety efforts underway across a company.
Aviation, nuclear power, and chemical manufacturing have
benefitted from safety management systems, and pipelines are,
too. The NTSB said the response to the pipeline safety
recommendation on safety management systems ``exceeded
expectations.''
Pipeline operators within AOPL and API will complete
updates of industrywide guidance on how to proactively inspect
and when to perform preventive maintenance on pipelines, how to
protect our companies and systems againstcyberattacks, and how
to safely manage idled pipelines.
As we move closer to the reauthorization of the national
pipeline safety program, our improved safety record is clear.
Pipeline operators have learned the lessons of past
pipelineincidents, and are developing new technologies and
innovative safety methods to prevent the incidents of the
future. Pipeline operators have implemented past mandates from
Congress, including notification of incidents within 1 hour of
confirmed discovery, sharing safety data sheets in the early
hours of an incident, and more frequent inspections of inland
deep-water pipelines.
Looking ahead there is great potential to harness the
safety benefits of new technologies and innovative methods for
keeping pipes safe. As the PHMSA Administrator said, we are on
the verge of a pipeline safety technology renaissance. But a
continuing challenge is to ensure that Federal oversight of
pipeline safety keeps pace with technology and innovation.
Federal pipeline safety regulations developed 10 or 20 years
ago sometimes do not reflect modern improvements to safety
inspection technologies and capabilities.
We look forward to working with the committee on these
issues, and I will be ready to answer any questions. Thank you.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Mr. Black, for your comments.
Mr. Rorick, you may now proceed.
Mr. Rorick. Good morning, Congressman Mitchell, Ranking
Member Capuano, and members of the subcommittee. I am the
midstream group director at the American Petroleum Institute,
where I oversee the organization's efforts to promote and
ensure the safety of our Nation's energy infrastructure,
including pipelines, rail, and maritime assets.
We appreciate the subcommittee's focus on promoting the
safety of our Nation's energy infrastructure, and appreciate
the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's
efforts to continue to implement the Protecting our
Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety Act of 2016.
However, in doing so, it is important that it be done in a
way that helps ensure that practical and performance-based
safety regulations are instituted. The development of efficient
and effective pipeline safety regulations ensures that we are
taking proper actions to protect the public and the
environment, while at the same time continuing the U.S. energy
renaissance that provides American consumers with access to
affordable and reliable energy.
Right now, the United States is leading the world in the
production and refining of natural gas and oil, and leading the
world in the reduction of carbon emissions to the lowest levels
in 25 years. Further, consumers are benefitting from our
Nation's energy dominance throughout the world, with affordable
American energy.
Pipelines are critical to ensuring that consumers keep
feeling the benefits of our Nation's vast energy resources, and
they are one of the most efficient ways to safely deliver the
energy that Americans use every day, from the gasoline that
fuels our transportation systems to the life-saving medical
devices made from liquid petroleum products, to the clean
natural gas that is used to generate much of the electricity
for our Nation's homes, manufacturing plants, hospitals, and
schools.
It is estimated that increased investment in our Nation's
energy infrastructure, including pipelines, is a $1 trillion
proposition that could support 1 million jobs per year through
2035, and add up to $100 billion to our GDP, annually.
At the direction of Congress, PHMSA has been working on the
development of two significant pipeline safety regulations, one
for oil and another for natural gas. Our industry has and will
continue to proactively and collaboratively engage with the
agency as they develop these rules to achieve our shared goal
of ensuring the safe and efficient transportation of our oil
and natural gas and their products.
For example, for the safety of hazardous liquids
transmission rule, we encourage PHMSA to consider our
recommendations, including repair criteria and the ability to
use engineering analysis in examining pipeline anomalies. For
the safety of gas transmission and gathering pipelines rule, we
appreciate and support the collaborative discussions through
the Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee, or GPAC, to produce
consensus recommendations for new regulations.
We hope to see similar discussions through the GPAC for
gathering pipelines, including the consideration of needed API
Recommended Practice on the subject.
As an industry, we are committed to safety in all of our
operations. API continues to develop and revise critical
standards and recommended practices following the accreditation
process of the American National Standards Institute, or ANSI.
Specifically, API has developed a number of standards to
address pipeline safety in close coordination with subject
matters from industry, Government, academia, and the broader
stakeholder community. In fact, PHMSA has incorporated, by
reference, many of these standards in their regulations. As API
standards are updated or new ones are developed to incorporate
the latest advances and best practices in safety within our
industry, PHMSA should execute a timely review to incorporate
by reference the latest edition or the first edition of
appropriate standards.
Ensuring that pipeline operations can use the most recent
and innovative technology will also help to bolster pipeline
safety. Current regulations have no deadlines associated with
PHMSA's review, notification, and issuance of special permits
for new technology. This can result in inefficiencies and, more
importantly, can prevent the industry from taking advantage of
the latest safety equipment and practices.
Operators are required to conduct timely assessments of
pipeline integrity, and that may often be done more effectively
with new technologies. However, there is a hesitation to do so,
given at times the burdensome special permit process. Requiring
PHMSA to exercise their authority to issue a special permit to
review alternative safety technology permit applications within
90 days will also provide greater certainty in the special
permit process, but will also aid operators in utilizing the
latest cutting-edge technologies to further pipeline safety.
In fact, at a more recent meeting of the Gas Pipeline
Advisory Committee, members recommended including this concept
in the proposed safety of gas transmission gathering lines
rule, and PHMSA expressed agreement.
Let me close by once more emphasizing that the oil and
natural gas industry is committed to promoting safety in all of
its operations, while it strives to ensure that American
families and businesses can safely and efficiently access
affordable and reliable energy.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Mr. Rorick, for your comments.
Mr. Zamarin, if you would like to begin, please, thank you.
Mr. Zamarin. Thank you, Congressman. My name is Chad
Zamarin, and I am senior vice president of corporate strategic
development at the Williams Companies.
Williams owns and operates critical energy infrastructure,
including our Nation's largest natural gas pipeline system. We
help to bring to market approximately one-third of the Nation's
natural gas, gas that is used to heat our homes, cook our food,
and increasingly generate electricity in an environmentally
responsible manner.
As mentioned by the chair, I am here today representing the
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America's membership. I
also serve on the Department of Transportation's Gas Pipeline
Advisory Committee, or GPAC, which Mr. Rorick mentioned. The
GPAC serves as an advisory committee to DOT and to PHMSA
regarding matters of pipeline safety and regulatory oversight,
and is comprised of equal representation from the gas industry,
Government agencies, and members of the public.
There are four principal points that I wish to make in this
testimony on behalf of the natural gas infrastructure industry.
First, operators will continue to incorporate new
technologies and enhance safety practices, even in the absence
of new regulations or legislation. Our pipeline infrastructure
represents what is great about our country and is a unique
American advantage.
Our pipeline network is the most vast and advanced in the
world, with major portions built in times of greatest need,
when many said it couldn't be done: pipelines built to fuel our
Industrial Revolution, to avoid waterborne threats during times
of great world wars, to fuel the growth and life quality of our
great cities, and now to support the transition of our economy
to cleaner fuels and renewable resources. In this spirit, in
advance of PHMSA completing its pending rulemaking, INGAA
[Interstate Natural Gas Association of America] members
committed voluntarily to undertake significant efforts to
enhance pipeline safety.
In one area alone, this work has supported an approximately
80-percent decrease in onshore gas transmission manufacturing-
related incidents since 2010, which was the year that a
manufacturing-related incident on a pipeline in San Bruno,
California, spurred many of the mandates we are discussing
today.
Second, operators support sensible regulations and the
completion of the pending rulemakings in a timely manner. It is
critical for an industry of our national importance to have
regulatory certainty to support ongoing investment and safety
enhancement. PHMSA continues to work towards addressing
pipeline safety mandates delivered in the last two
reauthorizations, and we strongly support PHMSA completing its
work in a timely and transparent manner.
Implementing voluntary pipeline safety programs, as we have
heard today, during the pendency of proposed regulations,
presents business risk. These pending regulations are meant to
facilitate safety advances. However, if they take too long or
aren't developed in a transparent manner, we risk the
unintended consequence of delaying voluntary implementation of
safety measures.
Third, the GPAC, which we have mentioned before, provides a
process that has proven effective in facilitating broad
stakeholder review of pending rules, and the GPAC should remain
an active participant in PHMSA's work. Early last year, PHMSA
initiated a series of GPAC meetings to consider the proposed
natural gas transmission and gathering rule, one of the most
ambitious and complex pipeline safety rules ever proposed.
Several public meetings were held to review and advise on the
rulemaking, and broad consensus was reached around many
challenging topics.
The GPAC's work, in collaboration with PHMSA and its staff,
in my view, represents one of the most significant enhancements
to pipeline safety since the original Federal regulations were
promulgated in 1970.
Finally, there are several outdated regulations that do not
reflect current leading practices, and should be updated or
eliminated. These outdated regulations result from a Code of
Federal Regulations that have been established over the past 50
years, one rulemaking at a time.
As an example, PHMSA has announced its intent to consider
whether integrity management programs offer an effective
alternative to outdated class location requirements. Due to
these outdated requirements, our industry spends between $200
and $300 million a year replacing perfectly good pipe segments.
As another example, outdated inspection practices such as
pressure testing and destructive material testing are required
by code, yet can result in unnecessary outages and avoidable
evacuation of methane to the atmosphere, while newer
technologies can provide better safety practices and assurances
without such negative effects. These are just a couple of the
examples of the many practices that result from regulations
issued as far back as 1970 with many based on technologies
developed in the 1940s and 1950s. We have learned a lot in the
past 70 years, and there are much more productive ways to
invest these substantial resources.
In conclusion, the natural gas infrastructure industry
fully supports the mission of PHMSA and its hard-working
professionals. We will continue to be proactive in adopting
advancements in technology and safety practices, while
supporting the implementation of new regulations in a timely
and transparent manner.
We urge the acceleration of new regulations through
collaboration with the GPAC alongside the rapid review and
retirement of outdated regulations that serve as an anchor
dragging behind an economic and safety enhancement engine ready
to fire on all cylinders.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here today.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Mr. Zamarin, for your comments.
Mr. Weimer, you may proceed.
Mr. Weimer. Good morning, and thank you for inviting me to
speak about pipeline safety today.
Before I talk about the PIPES Act, let me give you a brief
overview of where we stand today regarding the safety of
pipelines in this country.
Everyone testifying today supports the goal of zero
incidents. Yet, according to PHMSA data, since the President
signed the PIPES Act 2 years ago, there have been 1,186
reportable pipeline incidents. Of those incidents, 544 were
considered significant incidents under PHMSA's definition, and
the number of significant incidents has been increasing over
the past decade.
Also of concern is that over 70 percent of the failures on
gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines are from causes
the operators ought to have control over, such as corrosion,
incorrect operations, and problems with the materials and
equipment they use.
For the past 15 years, the emphasis on reducing pipeline
incidents has been focused on integrity management programs in
high-consequence areas. Unfortunately, significant incident
rates within high-consequence areas also continue to climb for
hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines.
We have also included in our testimony today how the
pipeline safety system that Congress has created also plays a
part in PHMSA's inability to get things done. One barrier to
getting to zero pipeline incidents is the cost-versus-benefit
analysis that both Congress and various administrations have
required new pipeline safety regulations to meet.
With a large pipeline system where the probability of a
failure is low, but the consequences can be huge, it is nearly
impossible to pass regulations that move us toward the goal of
zero incidents under the current cost-versus-benefit rules. We
hope you will make appropriate changes.
Congress has also prioritized a system that uses industry-
developed voluntary standards and recommended practices without
at the same time creating a system to ensure broad
participation in the development of those voluntary standards,
or to even verify if companies are using those voluntary
efforts, or using them properly. We hope you will change this,
as well.
We believe that PHMSA has met the regulatory reporting
requirements in the PIPES Act. Yet clearly, what is shown by
PHMSA does not portray the true tortured nature of some of
these rulemaking efforts.
For instance, the large rule meant to improve the safety of
this country's hazardous liquid pipelines was started nearly 8
years ago, but that fact is not clear on the web page. What is
also not mentioned is how many times the rule has bounced back
and forth between PHMSA and OMB, and that even though the rule
was ready for final publication, the current administration put
a hold on it in January of last year for concerns yet to be
stated publicly.
We suggest, to get a better idea of where the delay in the
rules is actually occurring, that PHMSA's rulemaking chart
include the date the rulemaking was begun, and for how long
PHMSA, OST, and OMB each had the rule in their possession.
In sections 4 and 5 of the PIPES Act, Congress asked the
GAO to produce important reports on the integrity management
programs for both natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines.
The directive in the PIPES Act asks for these reports after the
new gas and hazardous liquid rules are published. Since those
rules have yet to be published, and the current integrity
management rules have been in place for over a decade and are
well understood, we ask that Congress direct GAO to produce
these important reports as soon as possible, instead of waiting
for the proposed rules.
In the PIPES Act Congress mandated that PHMSA issue minimum
Federal safety standards for natural gas storage facilities
within 2 years. There are still no final standards in place.
PHMSA issued an interim final rule in December 2016. That
interim rule essentially incorporated by reference two
industry-developed recommended practices. Yet in January of
2017 a group of industry organizations filed a petition for
reconsideration of the interim rule. PHMSA agreed to consider
the petition and take further comments on the interim rule, and
hold off on any enforcement. No final rule or decision on the
petition for reconsideration has yet been issued.
In the PIPES Act Congress also directed PHMSA to make it
clear that the Great Lakes coastal beaches and marine coastal
waters are considered unusually sensitive areas. This mandate
is yet to be accomplished. The need to do this came as a
surprise to us, since clearly these areas are unusually
sensitive. We were also surprised to learn that PHMSA does not
currently have a way to define and map all such areas. Congress
should direct PHMSA to show how all such unusually sensitive
areas are being mapped and identified, and set up a system so
local and State governments that identify these areas in their
jurisdictions all the time at least have an opportunity to
review and comment on such PHMSA designations.
I see my time is about up, so I just want to thank you for
allowing me to testify today.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Weimer. As
you are aware, votes have been called. We are going to put
ourselves on the incentive system. If everyone keeps their
questions and answers short, we can wrap this up before we go
vote, and therefore, we can adjourn the hearing. Otherwise, we
are going to have to come back.
I am going to yield to my ranking member, and not have any
questions, to move this forward.
Sir?
Mr. Capuano. Thank you. And I appreciate the panel, and we
are trying to be respectful of your time, as well.
Just quickly, Mr. Zamarin, as I understand it, you are the
only one here who works for a private company. The others work
for associations. As a member of a private enterprise, if your
bosses told you to do something and you didn't do it for 8
years, how long do you think you would be employed?
Mr. Zamarin. Congressman, thank you for the question. I
can't imagine long.
Mr. Capuano. I didn't think so.
Mr. Black and Mr. Rorick, you both work for associations.
If your board told you to do something and you didn't do it for
8 years, how long do you think you would be employed by the
association?
Mr. Black. It would be somebody else here.
Mr. Rorick. Yes, I would have to agree with that.
Mr. Capuano. That is what I thought. Because of timing, Mr.
Weimer, I think you do a great job, thank you for your support.
Thank you, gentlemen, for being here, and I apologize for
the shortness of this.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you. The Chair recognizes Ms. Esty for
her questions, thank you.
Ms. Esty. We appreciate you being here, and would urge you
to continue to, as we move forward with possible--as you
heard--reauthorization of PHMSA, if it is really complying with
what needs to happen.
Just to flag concerns, I know I have some. And as a number
of you have mentioned, new technologies, we can't embed old
rules that rely on less useful technologies.
I have been working with other members of the committee on
the corrosion issue. Obviously, there is huge opportunities for
new sensors, for drones, and other kinds--you know, small
robotics to make inspections more frequent, safer. So those of
us both on this committee and the Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology would be very interested in following up with
you with some ideas on that front. The very fact that a number
of these regulations have not been issued may allow us to
potentially leap forward with better technologies. So we would
ask for your help and support in thinking about that.
And for all of you, I do think it is really important that
we look at the culture issue, the safety culture that we need
to have within those who are implementing rules. You can have
the best rules on the book, but if they are not implemented
well, if they are not incorporated into the culture, nothing is
going to matter, and people will continue to lose their lives.
So if you can follow back up with us--wanting to allow my
colleagues to have a chance to ask their questions, but I am
quite interested in your thoughts on how we ensure that, rather
than adversarial attitude, that we actually are working hand in
glove in a culture of safety that really is protecting workers
and the public so we can ensure safe delivery of energy to the
American people.
Thank you very much, and I appreciate your efforts.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you for your question and your brevity.
Mr. Lipinski, you are recognized.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you. I want to make sure I get this
done quickly. So thank you all for your testimony, and I thank
the chairman.
When we were considering the PIPES Act, I called attention
to a number of reports from TSA [Transportation Security
Administration], GAO, and CRS [Congressional Research Service]
that identify pipelines as increasingly a target of attempted
cyberattacks. So at that time I had requested, along with
Ranking Member DeFazio, that the GAO do a study of the adequacy
of pipeline control system cybersecurity. GAO is in the
process, I understand, of concluding this study right now.
Early this month two FERC commissioners published an
editorial expressing their opinion that there should be
mandatory cybersecurity for gas pipelines. I have more specific
questions, but let me throw this out as a general question,
just so we can--I can submit the other questions for the
record, possibly.
But I just want to ask Mr. Rorick if you think that there
needs to be mandatory guidelines, regulatory mandates, or is
the current creation of industry consensus standards and
recommended practices, is that enough, do you believe?
Mr. Rorick. Congressman Lipinski, we--there is an existing
API Recommended Practice, 1164, that deals specifically with
the issues that you are talking about on SCADA [supervisory
control and data acquisition] systems, and industrial control
systems. That recommended practice is currently being updated.
We have invited TSA to participate in it, so they are well
aware of it.
And in addition, that recommended practice also references
the NIST [National Institute of Standards and Technology]
framework, which is broadly used by not only our industry, but
multiple industries.
So we feel we are well aware of the threats, we are
coordinating very closely with TSA, DOE [Department of Energy],
DHS [Department of Homeland Security], and the other
intelligence agencies. And we feel that we are very engaged and
on top of these issues. But there is always more to learn, sir,
and we would welcome the opportunity to discuss it further.
Mr. Lipinski. I thank you. With that, for time, I will
yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Mitchell. Thank you, Mr. Lipinski. Thank you,
gentlemen, for being here. I am sorry that votes today have
abbreviated the time people may have had for questions. Your
comments have been helpful to today's hearing.
As there are no further questions, I would ask unanimous
consent that the record of today's hearing remain open until
such time as our witnesses have provided the answers to any
questions that may be submitted to the record, unanimous
consent that the record remain open for 15 days for any
additional comments or questions from Members or witnesses that
will be included in today's record.
Without objection, so ordered.
I would like to thank our witnesses again. Thank you for
being here, and for your testimony.
If the other Members don't have anything to add, the
subcommittee standards adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]