[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS TO MAKE OUR NATION'S
PIPELINES SAFER
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 19, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-48
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-606 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
Chair BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
Massachusetts MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Energy
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
Chairman
SCOTT H. PETERS, California FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania Ranking Member
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California, Vice CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
Chair PETE OLSON, Texas
PAUL TONKO, New York DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III, BILL FLORES, Texas
Massachusetts RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas TIM WALBERG, Michigan
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Illinois, opening statement................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Michigan, opening statement.................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement\1\................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Witnesses
Christina Sames, Vice President, Operations and Engineering
Services, American Gas Association............................. 11
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Answers to submitted questions............................... 191
Chuck Lesniak III, Principal, CL3 Consulting..................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Andrew J. Black, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Association of Oil Pipe Lines.................................. 42
Prepared statement........................................... 44
Answers to submitted questions............................... 195
C.J. Osman, Director of Operations, Safety, and Integrity,
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.................. 54
Prepared statement........................................... 56
Answers to submitted questions............................... 199
Submitted Material
Discussion Draft, H.R. ___, the Safer Pipelines Act of 2019,
submitted by Mr. Rush.......................................... 106
H.R. 2139, the Leonel Rondon Safe Pipelines Act, submitted by Mr.
Rush........................................................... 124
Letter of June 18, 2019, from Michael Aitken, President, National
Society of Professional Engineers, to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton,
submitted by Mr. Rush.......................................... 138
Letter of June 18, 2019, from Josh Chaise, Vice President,
Product Management, Water and Gas, Aclara Technologies, LLC, to
Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, submitted by Mr. Rush.................. 141
Letter of June 18, 2019, from Robin Rorick, Vice President,
Midstream & Industry Operations, American Petroleum Institute,
to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, submitted by Mr. Rush............... 143
Letter of June 18, 2019, from Matthew Hite, Vice President of
Government Affairs, GPA Midstream Association, to Mr. Pallone,
et al., submitted by Mr. Rush.................................. 151
Letter of June 18, 2019, from International Union of Operating
Engineers, et al., to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton, submitted by Mr.
Rush........................................................... 159
Analysis of the Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines and
Enhancing Safety Act of 2019, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, submitted by Mr. Rush................... 161
----------
\1\ Mr. Flores presented Mr. Walden's statement orally.
Summary of the Safer Pipelines Act of 2019, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, submitted by Mr.
Rush........................................................... 182
Letter of June 19, 2019, from Robert H. Chalker, Chief Executive
Officer, NACE International, to Mr. Rush and Mr. Upton,
submitted by Mr. Rush.......................................... 189
LEGISLATIVE SOLUTIONS TO MAKE OUR NATION'S PIPELINES SAFER
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 19, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:33 a.m. in
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L. Rush
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Rush, Peters, Doyle,
McNerney, Tonko, Loebsack, Butterfield, Schrader, Kennedy,
Veasey, Kuster, Barragan, O'Halleran, Blunt Rochester, Pallone
(ex officio), Upton (subcommittee ranking member), Latta,
Rodgers, Olson, Kinzinger, Griffith, Johnson, Bucshon, Flores,
Walberg, Duncan, and Walden (ex officio).
Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; Omar
Guzman-Toro, Policy Analyst; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and
Staff Director, Brendan Larkin, Policy Coordinator; Elysa
Montfort, Press Secretary; Lisa Olson, FERC Detailee; Alivia
Roberts, Press Assistant; Tuley Wright, Energy and Environment
Policy Advisor; Mike Bloomquist, Minority Staff Director;
Theresa Gambo, Minority Human Resources/Office Administrator;
Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Ryan Long, Minority
Deputy Staff Director; Mary Martin, Minority Chief Counsel,
Energy and Environment and Climate Change; Brandon Mooney,
Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; Brannon Rains,
Legislative Clerk; Peter Spencer, Minority Senior Professional
Staff Member, Environment and Climate Change.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Mr. Rush. Good morning to all.
I want to thank you all for attending today's important
hearing entitled ``Legislative Solutions to Make Our Nation's
Pipelines Safer,'' and I want to welcome all of our witnesses
that will be testifying, including some who are returning from
our May oversight hearing.
This morning we will be examining the Safer Pipelines Act
of 2019, as well as H.R. 2139, the Leonel Rondon Pipeline
Safety Act, introduced by our colleagues from Massakchusetts:
Ms. Trahan, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Moulton.
Additionally, Members may also inquire about provisions of
the Pipeline Safety Legislative Proposal introduced earlier
this month by PHMSA.
At the beginning, I want to be crystal clear. The
discussion draft introduced by the majority side represents
many provisions that Chairman Pallone, myself, and other
Democratic colleagues would, ideally, like to see included in
pipeline safety reauthorization.
However, as we have said time and time again, both Chairman
Pallone and I would like for this process to be transparent, to
be open, and we look forward to working with members of the
minority, PHMSA, and other important stakeholders to ultimately
draft legislation that will receive wider bipartisan support.
I hope that I am clear on this. We want to work with all
the stakeholders and also with the minority side.
With that said, I would like to highlight some of the
important provisions included in the discussion draft that I
believe would make our Nation's pipeline infrastructure safer
and more secure.
And one of the major components of the draft is that it
would regulate many of the 435,000 miles of gathering lines,
including all onshore pipelines operating above a specified
pressure.
I believe this is a commonsense measure that would help to
inform and protect communities surrounding these gathering
lines, which are completely unregulated in today's environment.
The draft would also eliminate the, quote, ``grandfather
clause,'' end of quote, so that pipelines built prior to July
1, 1970 would no longer be exempt from testing for their
maximum allowable operating pressure--another commonsense
provision.
The bill would eliminate the duplicative cost-benefit
requirements, which is currently only imposed on PHMSA and
which is at least partly responsible for the agency missing so
many of its deadlines for rulemakings, according to former
Administrator Quarterman.
The legislation also mandates automatic leak detection and
shut-off valves for pipelines located in high-consequence
areas, a provision that should help to save vital time and
potentially loss of life and property in the event of an
accident.
I believe that each of these provisions, as well as
additional measures, would help bring additional resources and
critical operational information to communities and to first
responders, as both the subcommittee discussion draft and H.R.
2139 does, and would help to strengthen our Nation's pipeline
safety regime.
I look forward to engaging the witnesses and also the
members of the minority and working with all of you to enhance
this legislation as we move through the committee process.
[The legislation appears at the conclusion of the hearing.
The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby L. Rush
I want to thank you all for attending today's important
hearing entitled ``Legislative Solutions to Make Our Nation's
Pipelines Safer.''
I want to welcome all of our witnesses that will be
testifying, including some who are returning from our May
oversight hearing.
This morning we will be examining the Safer Pipelines Act
of 2019, as well as H.R. 2139, the ``Leonel Rondon Pipeline
Safety Act,'' introduced by our colleagues from Massachusetts:
Mr. Trahan, Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Moulton.
Additionally, Members may also inquire about provisions of
the Pipeline Safety Legislative Proposal introduced earlier
this month by PHMSA.
I want to be clear right from the outset that the
discussion draft introduced by the majority side represents
many provisions that Chairman Pallone, myself and many
Democratic colleagues would, ideally, like to see included in
pipeline safety reauthorization.
However, as we have said on numerous occasions, both
Chairman Pallone and I would like for this process to be
transparent and open, and we look forward to working with
Members of the minority, PHMSA and other important stakeholders
to ultimately draft legislation that will receive wide,
bipartisan support.
With that being said, I would like to highlight some of the
important provisions included in the discussion draft that I
believe would make our Nation's pipeline infrastructure safer
and more secure.
One of the major components of the draft is that it would
regulate many of the 435,000 miles of gathering lines,
including all onshore pipelines operating above a specified
pressure.
I believe this is a commonsense measure that would help to
inform and protect communities surrounding these gathering
lines, which today remain completely unregulated.
The draft would also eliminate the ``grandfather clause''
so that pipelines built prior to July 1, 1970, would no longer
be exempt from testing for their maximum allowable operating
pressure.
The bill would eliminate the duplicative cost-benefit
requirements, which is currently only imposed on PHMSA, and
which is at least partly responsible for the agency missing so
many of its deadlines for rulemakings, according to former
Administrator Quarterman.
The legislation also mandates automatic leak detection and
shutoff valves for pipelines located in high consequence areas,
a provision that should help save vital time and potentially
loss of life and property in the event of an accident.
I believe that each of these provisions, as well as
additional measures that would help bring additional resources
and critical operational information to communities and first-
responders, as both the subcommittee discussion draft and H.R.
2139 does, would help to strengthen our Nation's pipeline
safety regime.
I look forward to engaging with today's witnesses on these
proposals, and also working with my colleagues on the minority
side to further enhance this legislation as we move through the
committee process.
With that I yield the balance of my time, and now I would
like to recognize my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Upton
for his opening statement.
Mr. Rush. With that, I yield my time back and I recognize
my good friend from the great State of Michigan, Ranking Member
Upton, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing to continue our work on pipeline safety
reauthorization, and I look forward to your statement ``working
with all of us'' because I am going to sound a little tough,
probably, in my opening statement.
But I know that we can do better than this discussion draft
before us.
Pipeline safety has always been one of my highest
priorities in every Congress and I was encouraged and
optimistic that we could work on this bill together as we have
in the past.
In fact, if you look back at the history, I believe that
when we passed previous reauthorizations, they passed under
suspension, almost always with more than 400 votes if not by
voice.
But up until now, we on this side of the aisle have been
pretty much left out of that drafting process. The discussion
draft before us reflects that.
In many respects, it appears that it will be more of a
messaging bill than one that can truly advance safety practices
and make it through the process and to the President to be
signed before the end of September.
And to be frank, this bill, I don't think, has a ghost of a
chance of going anywhere in the Senate, let alone getting
signed by the President in the way--the shape and form that it
is now.
So I know--I do know that we all share many of the same
priorities when it comes to pipeline safety and we have worked
together, and this is demonstrated by the strong bipartisan
work that the committee produced the last time we reauthorized
PHMSA and enacted real pipeline safety reform. We need to
continue on those bipartisan practices.
So I urge you today to hit the button reset. Let us open
the process up. Let us work together across the aisle rather
than rushing this draft through the subcommittee.
Let us give PHMSA an opportunity to testify on their
reauthorization proposal and provide us with the technical
assistance on the drafting. So far, they have not done so.
We owe it to our constituents to have a more open and
transparent process where all of the relevant stakeholders,
particularly PHMSA, when they could have an opportunity to
present their views on the reform proposals.
One, I believe that we have got to make sure that PHMSA and
the States have the resources and the tools that they need to
perform their pipeline safety responsibilities.
Second, we need to hold PHMSA's feet to the fire
accountable for completing the outstanding congressional
mandates and finishing the pending rulemakings left over from
prior reauthorizations, absolutely.
And third, we need to make sure that PHMSA, State
regulators, and pipeline operators are incorporating lessons
learned from prior accidents, integrating new technologies and
continue to improve on safety.
I am afraid that this draft falls short in several critical
areas. For one, it appears that the draft could slow the pace
of PHMSA's rulemaking by encouraging frivolous lawsuits that
result in sue and settle agreements, potentially diverting
agency resources from developing important safety regulations.
It could also lengthen the interagency review process by
having PHMSA and OMB in complete rulemakings that fail to
consider the full range of costs and benefits.
This draft may also have the unintended effect of weakening
pipeline safety--not a good thing. Particularly concerned that
the draft would arbitrarily mandate certain technologies such
as automatic valves on liquid pipelines, which could lead to
accidental pipeline ruptures when that liquid backs up.
This draft could also prohibit direct assessment of
pipelines, which is a valuable method for evaluating and
managing corrosion threats. The discussion draft may also
divert PHMSA's limited resources by expanding its jurisdiction
to include regulation of gathering lines, which are effectively
managed at the State level today.
Finally, I am concerned that the draft does nothing to
encourage innovation or the adoption of new pipeline safety
technologies or safety processes.
It also fails to incentivize pipeline operators to
voluntarily exceed minimum safety requirements. I don't think
that the draft goes far enough to prevent cyber attacks,
something we have all been worried about, and discourage bad
actors from damaging pipeline facilities.
So, as we move forward, I plan to keep an open mind,
especially given our history with pipeline safety and our good
working excellent relationship.
But if we hit recess and take--excuse me, if we hit reset
and take our time on this rather than speeding ahead to
subcommittee markup next week, I think we will have a much
better bill than what's before us today.
And with that, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Upton
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing to
continue our work on pipeline safety reauthorization. Pipeline
safety is one of my highest priorities this Congress, and I had
hoped we could work on this bill together. Unfortunately, up
until now, Republicans have been left out of the drafting
process.
The discussion draft before us today reflects this. In many
respects, it appears to be more of a messaging bill than one
that will truly advance safety practices and make it through
the process and onto the President's desk. To be frank, this
bill does not have a chance of passing the Senate and getting
signed by the President.
Mr. Chairman, I believe we all share many of the same
priorities when it comes to pipeline safety. This is
demonstrated by the strong bi-partisan work this committee
produced the last time we reauthorized PHMSA and enacted
pipeline safety reforms. We should continue to build on those
bi-partisan practices this time around.
I urge you to hit reset. Let's open this process up and
work together across the aisle. Rather than rushing this draft
through the subcommittee, let's give PHMSA an opportunity to
testify on their reauthorization proposal and provide us with
technical assistance on the drafting. We owe it to our
constituents to have a more open and transparent process, where
all the relevant stakeholders have an opportunity to present
their views and reform proposals. I have three main goals for
reauthorization:
First, I believe that we need to make sure that PHMSA and
the States have the resources and the tools they need to
perform their pipeline safety responsibilities.
Second, we need to hold PHMSA accountable for completing
the outstanding Congressional mandates and finishing the
pending rulemakings leftover from prior reauthorizations.
Third, we need to ensure that PHSMA, State regulators, and
pipeline operators are incorporating lessons-learned from prior
accidents, integrating new technologies, and continuing to
improve safety.
I am afraid the discussion draft before us today falls
short in several critical areas. For one, it appears that the
draft could slow the pace of PHMSA's rulemakings by encouraging
frivolous lawsuits that result in sue and settle agreements,
potentially diverting agency resources from developing
important safety regulations. It could also lengthen the
interagency review process by having PHMSA send OMB incomplete
rulemakings that fail to consider the full range of costs and
benefits.
The discussion draft may also have the unintended effect of
weakening pipeline safety. I am particularly concerned that the
draft would arbitrarily mandate certain technologies, such as
automatic valves on liquid pipelines, which could lead to
accidental pipeline ruptures. The draft would also prohibit
direct assessment of pipelines, which is a valuable method for
evaluating and managing corrosion threats. The discussion draft
may also divert PHMSA's limited resources by expanding its
jurisdiction to include regulation of gathering lines, which
are effectively managed at the State level today.
Finally, I am concerned the draft does nothing to encourage
innovation or the adoption of new pipeline safety technologies
or safety processes. It also fails to incentivize pipeline
operators to voluntarily exceed minimum safety requirements. I
also don't think the draft goes far enough to prevent cyber
attacks and discourage bad actors from damaging pipeline
facilities.
As we move ahead, I plan to keep an open mind, especially
given our history with pipeline safety, and our good working
relationship. I hope that after today we can hit ``reset'' and
take our time on this, rather than speeding ahead to a
subcommittee markup next week. This is such an important issue
and it has historically been a fully bipartisan process.
With that, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses
and working closely with you in the weeks ahead. Thank you, I
yield back.
Mr. Rush. I thought you were my friend.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Upton. My buddy.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today's hearing focuses on two legislative proposals to
improve pipeline safety in America. In May, the subcommittee
held an oversight hearing to hear from stakeholders about what
changes are needed as we consider reauthorization of the
Pipeline Safety Act.
Since we last reauthorized this critical Federal program--3
years ago this week--several major pipeline incidents have
occurred, underscoring the need for additional reforms to our
Federal pipeline safety programs.
Last year, a failure in Massachusetts' Merrimack Valley
killed one person, injured 21 others, and damaged more than 130
homes.
We have made progress on Federal pipeline safety over the
last 20 years, since the Olympic gasoline pipeline explosion in
Bellingham, Washington, killed three young people.
But preventable incidents still occur and we must do
everything in our power to ensure our national pipeline network
is as safe as possible.
The Safer Pipelines Act of 2019, a discussion draft the
subcommittee will review today, makes several critical changes
to the Federal pipeline safety program.
A major overarching problem with the Federal pipeline
safety program is that it takes the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration--PHMSA--too long to finalize
congressional mandates.
There are still outstanding rulemakings that were required
in 2011 and 2016 reauthorizations that PHMSA has failed to
finish, and this is unacceptable.
At our oversight hearing in May, we heard that the biggest
cause for delay is the prescriptive cost-benefit analysis
required by the 1996 reauthorization.
The discussion draft removes this duplicative requirement
while still ensuring PHMSA rules are subject to the same
economic analysis that every other major rule receives.
The proposal also restores the mechanism for citizens to
pursue legal action to compel PHMSA to fulfill its statutory
duties, which was a major issue in the aftermath of the 2010
San Bruno pipeline explosion that killed eight people in
Northern California.
San Francisco sued the Federal Government for having
abjectly failed to enforce safety standards. But the suit was
dismissed because the court held that the law did not permit
mandamus-type citizen suits.
Another critical area addressed in the discussion draft is
the need for modifying the ridiculously high bar for imposing
criminal penalties in current law.
The proposal changes the standard to ``knowingly or
recklessly,'' which would bring the pipeline criminal standard
in line with that of the Hazmat statute.
The Government must be able to hold companies accountable
when they knowingly or recklessly ignore the law.
The Trump administration has submitted its own
reauthorization proposal, which includes a provision to
criminalize pipeline construction protests.
I have no intention of allowing a pipeline safety bill to
be used as a vehicle for stifling legitimate dissent and
protest. That provision is dead on arrival as far as I am
concerned.
There are, however, a number of useful ideas within the
administration's proposal and I look forward to working with my
colleagues and the Department of Transportation to find common
ground on these issues.
The subcommittee will also review the Leonel Rondon
Pipeline Safety Act, introduced by Representatives Trahan,
Kennedy, and Moulton. This bill is a direct response to the
failures that occurred during the Merrimack Valley incident in
Massachusetts and it would improve the management of gas
pipeline distribution systems and fix gaps in safety
regulations that led to the tragedy in Massachusetts.
I commend the bill sponsors for their thoughtful effort and
I am hopeful we can include several ideas from their proposal
in a final pipeline safety reauthorization bill.
The ideas included in the Safer Pipelines Act are important
to me and to communities around the country. But this is a
draft and serves as a starting point for discussion and
collaboration, just as this hearing is a means to get all ideas
for reauthorization out into the open and onto the table.
So I look forward to hearing from my committee colleagues
on both sides of the aisle today on their ideas for
reauthorization because I hope and expect that the final
product the committee reports will be a strong bipartisan bill
and I am committed to working in a bipartisan manner to update
and improve this critical Federal program so that we can
produce a final bill that we can all be proud of and,
obviously, gets passed in the Senate and signed by the
President.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
Today's hearing focuses on two legislative proposals to
improve pipeline safety in America. In May, the subcommittee
held an oversight hearing to hear from stakeholders about what
changes are needed as we consider reauthorization of the
Pipeline Safety Act.
Since we last reauthorized this critical Federal program--3
years ago this week--several major pipeline incidents have
occurred, underscoring the need for additional reforms to our
Federal pipeline safety programs. Last year, a failure in
Massachusetts' Merrimack Valley killed one person, injured 21
others and damaged more than 130 homes.
We have made progress on Federal pipeline safety over the
last 20 years, since the Olympic Gasoline Pipeline explosion in
Bellingham, Washington, killed three young people. But
preventable incidents still occur, and we must do everything in
our power to ensure our national pipeline network is as safe as
possible.
The Safer Pipelines Act of 2019, a discussion draft the
subcommittee will review today, makes several critical changes
to the Federal pipeline safety program. A major, overarching
problem with the Federal pipeline safety program is that it
takes the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration (PHMSA, FIM-zuh) too long to finalize
Congressional mandates. There are still outstanding rulemakings
that were required in the 2011 and 2016 reauthorizations that
PHMSA has failed to finish. This is unacceptable. At our
oversight hearing in May, we heard that the biggest cause for
delay is the prescriptive cost-benefit analysis required by the
1996 reauthorization. The discussion draft removes this
duplicative requirement, while still ensuring PHMSA rules are
subject to the same economic analysis that every other major
rule receives.
The proposal also restores the mechanism for citizens to
pursue legal action to compel PHMSA to fulfill its statutory
duties, which was a major issue in the aftermath of the 2010
San Bruno pipeline explosion that killed eight people in
Northern California. San Francisco sued the Federal Government
for having abjectly failed to enforce safety standards, but the
suit was dismissed because the court held that the law did not
permit mandamus-type citizen suits.
Another critical area addressed in the discussion draft is
the need for modifying the ridiculously high bar for imposing
criminal penalties in current law. The proposal changes the
standard to ``knowingly or recklessly,'' which would bring the
pipeline criminal standard in line with that of the Hazmat
statute. The Government must be able to hold companies
accountable when they knowingly or recklessly ignore the law.
The Trump administration has submitted its own
reauthorization proposal, which includes a provision to
criminalize pipeline construction protests. I have no intention
of allowing a pipeline safety bill to be used as a vehicle for
stifling legitimate dissent and protest. That provision is dead
on arrival as far as I'm concerned. There are, however, a
number of useful ideas within the administration's proposal and
I look forward to working with my colleagues and the Department
of Transportation to find common ground on these issues.
The subcommittee will also review the Leonel Rondon
Pipeline Safety Act, introduced by Representatives Trahan,
Kennedy and Moulton. This bill is a direct response to the
failures that occurred during the Merrimack Valley incident in
Massachusetts. It would improve the management of gas pipeline
distribution systems and fix gaps in safety regulations that
led to the tragedy in Massachusetts. I commend the bill
sponsors for their thoughtful effort, and I am hopeful we can
include several ideas from their proposal in a final pipeline
safety reauthorization bill.
The ideas included in the Safer Pipelines Act are important
to me and to communities around the country. But this is a
draft and serves as a starting point for discussion and
collaboration, just as this hearing is a means to get all ideas
for reauthorization out into the open and onto the table.
I look forward to hearing from my committee colleagues on
both sides of the aisle today on their ideas for
reauthorization because I hope and expect that the final
product the committee reports will be a strong, bipartisan
bill. I am committed to working in a bipartisan manner to
update and improve this critical Federal program so that we
produce a final bill that we can all be proud of and support.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Flores, who is going to read
the statement of the ranking member, Mr. Walden.
Mr. Flores, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
[Whereupon Mr. Flores read Mr. Walden's statement.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The committee's work to reauthorize and modernize the
Nation's pipeline safety program is important and deserves
close, careful, and bipartisan attention.
This is the hallmark of this committee's work, especially
when it comes to safety-related legislation. While it looked
like that we were on the right track a month ago, we haven't
made much progress since then.
In part, I think this is because we have not been adhering
completely to our past bipartisan practices. Judging by the
discussion draft before us today, it appears that the Democrats
have chosen to go along up until this point, releasing a
partisan draft, and that on our initial read it requires a lot
of work.
Mr. Chairman, Members deserve the ability to gather the
views of all relevant stakeholders and to understand the full
impact of legislation before voting on it.
The discussion draft before us today was only released last
week, and the process was so rushed that, as I understand it,
PHMSA didn't have time to prepare testimony.
While we were fortunate to have PHMSA testify back in May,
it has come to my attention that our Members' questions for the
record still have not been submitted. This is over 6 weeks
later.
So here we are today with many unanswered questions for
PHMSA and facing the prospect of a subcommittee markup next
week.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, pipeline safety reauthorization
has, historically, been a fully bipartisan process. Under the
Republican majority, Democrats and Republicans sat down
together to work through the issues and to draft a bill.
I am disappointed that more than a month has gone by and we
still have nothing to show for it. As we move ahead, I hope
that we can get a commitment to slow down and work together.
While we may not agree on everything, I believe that there
are many areas where we can strengthen the law to drive
innovation and to improve safety.
First and foremost, we should recognize that pipeline
safety is a shared responsibility between PHMSA, the States,
and pipeline operators.
There's a lot that Congress can do to encourage pipeline
operators to improve their performance. However, I have serious
concerns over the discussion draft's one-size-fits-all approach
and overly prescriptive mandates.
This administration inherited a number of missed deadlines
for pipeline safety rulemakings from the prior administration.
However, PHMSA officials have worked hard and have made
substantial progress in this regard.
Certain impacts from this discussion draft actually could
delay these important rulemakings to improve safety and to bog
down the process even further. This does not serve the public
interest.
While it can be tempting, we should not get too far ahead
of ourselves. Congress should recognize and account for the
safety improvements that will be implemented through the
outstanding congressional mandates in the pending rulemakings.
PHMSA is making progress on several important regulations
addressing hazardous liquid pipelines, gas pipelines, valve and
rupture protection, and plastic pipes, among other regulatory
actions.
Together, these rules represent many years of work and we
should not pull out the rug and disrupt the progress by
injecting more regulatory uncertainty.
Our reauthorization bill should reflect this reality by
continuing to encourage a cooperative flexible approach to
pipeline safety.
We should make sure that PHMSA and the States have adequate
resources to inspect and protect the Nation's pipeline system.
We should hold PHMSA accountable for completing overdue
rulemakings. And finally, we should encourage pipeline
operators to adopt new technologies and to continue to improve
safety.
With this, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this
hearing, and I look forward to hearing the testimony of the
witnesses.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden
The committee's work to reauthorize and modernize the
Nation's pipeline safety program is important and deserves
close, careful, and bi-partisan attention. This is the hallmark
of the committee's work, especially when it comes to safety
related legislation.
While it looked like we were on the right track a month
ago, we haven't made much progress since then. In part, I think
this is because we have not been adhering completely to our
past bipartisan practices. Judging by the discussion draft
before us today, it appears that the Democrats have chosen to
go it alone up until this point, releasing a partisan draft
that on our initial read requires a lot of work.
Mr. Chairman, Members deserve the ability to gather the
views of all relevant stakeholders and understand the full
impact of legislation before voting on it. The discussion draft
before us today was only released last week, and the process
was so rushed that, as I understand it, PHMSA didn't have time
to prepare testimony.
While we were fortunate to have PHMSA testify back in May,
it has come to my attention that our Member's Questions for the
Record have not been submitted. So here we are today, with many
unanswered questions for PHMSA, and facing the prospect of a
subcommittee markup next week.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, pipeline safety reauthorization
has historically been a fully bipartisan process. Under the
Republican majority, Democrats and Republicans sat down
together to work through the issues and draft a bill. I am
disappointed that a month has gone by and we have nothing to
show for it.
As we move ahead, I hope that we can get a commitment to
slow down and work together. While we may not agree on
everything, I believe there are many areas where we can
strengthen the law to drive innovation and improve safety.
First and foremost, we should recognize that pipeline
safety is a shared responsibility between PHMSA, the States,
and pipeline operators. There is a lot Congress can do to
encourage pipeline operators to improve their performance;
however, I have serious concerns by the discussion draft's
``one size fits all'' approach and overly prescriptive
mandates.
This administration inherited a number of missed deadlines
for pipeline safety rulemakings; however, PHMSA officials have
worked hard and made substantial progress. Certain impacts from
this discussion draft actually could delay these important
rulemakings to improve safety and bog down the process even
further. This will not serve the public interest.
While it can be tempting, we should not get too far ahead
of ourselves. Congress should recognize and account for the
safety improvements that will be implemented through the
outstanding congressional mandates and pending rulemakings.
PHMSA is making progress on several important regulations
addressing hazardous liquid pipelines, gas pipelines, valve and
rupture protection, and plastic pipes, among other regulatory
actions. Together, these rules represent many years of work,
and we should not pull out the rug and disrupt the progress by
injecting more regulatory uncertainty.
Our reauthorization bill should reflect this reality by
continuing to encourage a cooperative, flexible approach to
pipeline safety. We should make sure PHMSA and States have
adequate resources to inspect and protect the Nation's pipeline
system; we should hold PHMSA accountable for completing overdue
rulemakings; and finally, we should encourage pipeline
operators to adopt new technologies and continue to improve
safety.
With that, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing
and I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses. I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair would like to remind Members that, pursuant to
committee rules, all Members' written opening statement shall
be made part of the record.
I would like to now introduce our panel of witnesses for
today's hearing.
On my left is Ms. Christina Sames, the vice president of
operations and engineering, of the American Gas Association.
Next to her is Mr. Chuck Lesniak, the principal of CL3
Consulting, on behalf of the Pipeline Safety Trust.
Next to Mr. Lesniak is Mr. Andrew Black. Mr. Black is the
president and CEO of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines. And
last but not least is Mr. Christopher ``C.J.'' Osman. He is the
director of operations, safety, and integrity of the--for the
Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.
We want to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today
and we look forward to your testimony. At this time, the Chair
will now recognize each witness for 5 minutes to provide their
opening statement.
But let me caution you before we begin. I want to explain
this lighting system. There is a system here, you know. In
front of you is a series of lights. The light will initially be
green at the start of your opening statement.
The light will turn yellow when you have 1 minute
remaining, and please begin to wrap up your statement at that
point. The light will turn red when your time expires.
If you continue, then we will put you over in the corner
with a dunce cap on.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rush. Ms. Sames, you are now recognized for 5 minutes
for the purposes of an opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF CHRISTINA SAMES, VICE PRESIDENT, OPERATIONS AND
ENGINEERING SERVICES, AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION; CHUCK LESNIAK
III, PRINCIPAL, CL3 CONSULTING; ANDREW J. BLACK, PRESIDENT AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ASSOCIATION OF OIL PIPE LINES; C.J.
OSMAN, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, SAFETY, AND INTEGRITY,
INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
STATEMENT OF CHRISTINA SAMES
Ms. Sames. And I don't want to be put in the corner.
So, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Upton, and members of the
subcommittee, I am Christina Sames, vice president of
operations and engineering at the American Gas Association.
Prior to AGA, I worked at Pipeline Research Council
International and spent 12 years at PHMSA, where I worked to
advance pipeline safety initiatives.
AGA represents more than 200 local energy companies that
deliver natural gas to 74 million customers. The gas utilities
distribution pipelines are the final link in the delivery chain
that brings natural gas from the well head to the burner tip.
AGA member employees live in the communities that they
serve, interact daily with the customers and State regulators
who oversee pipeline safety locally.
Safety is at the very core of AGA and its members, and we
go well beyond regulations to improve pipeline safety. We take
pride in the overall safety performance but recent incidents
are a painful reminder we must continue to raise the bar on
safety. Any incident is one incident too many.
The industry is supportive of flexible, risk-based, and
practical improvements to pipeline safety that reflect lessons
learned from past pipeline incidents.
There's little in the House Energy and Commerce bill that
accomplishes that particular goal. For example, the proposed
legislation removes the requirement that regulations be
reasonable or cost effective.
The cost-benefit analysis was mandated to ensure that
regulations do not put an undue burden on customers that bear
the cost of mandates without a measurable improvement to the
safe delivery of natural gas. That's logical, and should
continue as the criteria for developing regulations.
There are other provisions in the Energy and Commerce bill
and the Markey-Trahan bill that do not appear to improve
pipeline safety. For example, eliminating the use of direct
assessment, a tool that not only determines that corrosion has
occurred but it is predictive and indicates where corrosion
could occur.
That should be allowed to be continued. Requiring operators
to send integrity management plans, operation and maintenance
manuals, pipeline characteristics, and many other documents to
emergency responders.
In my discussions over the years with first responders,
their concerns have centered around getting way too much
information that sits on the shelf. They want condensed,
meaningful, and understandable information.
Increasing civil penalties, expanding criminal liability to
include recklessness, and adding a provision that encourages
litigation against PHMSA will do little to improve pipeline
safety.
Core to a strong safety culture is encouraging self-
disclosure within a company and with the regulators. A more
productive alternative would be to encourage voluntary sharing
of safety issues as proposed by the administration bill.
AGA is supportive of actually many of the provisions in the
administration's bill, including the safety incentives program
that encourages companies to exceed regulations, pipeline
safety pilot programs for technology advances, and criminal
penalties for those that damage, destroy, vandalize, or
otherwise disrupt operation and create pipeline safety issues.
During the pipeline safety reauthorization process, AGA
asks the subcommittee to consider four high-level priorities.
One, preserve industry's engagement in pipeline safety
rulemaking by upholding PHMSA's regulatory process.
Two, provide support, flexibility, and regulations by
recognizing that gas distribution systems differ, and avoid
one-size-fits-all prescriptive regulations.
Three, don't obstruct pipeline safety replacement programs
at the State level via new mandates that delay replacements or
require replacements faster than work can be accomplished
safely, reliably, and without compromising quality.
And four, focus on provisions that improve pipeline safety
by avoiding extraneous legal, regulatory, and administrative
provisions that really hamper the regulatory process.
Our full statement covers a number of pipeline safety
reauthorization topics. I would like to reiterate industry's
commitment to safety. Public safety, worker safety, and
pipeline safety are all core values that affect everything that
we do and how we do it.
We know that without safety nothing else matters.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this
hearing and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sames follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lesniak for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHUCK LESNIAK III
Mr. Lesniak. Thank you.
Good morning, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Upton, and
members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me to speak
about pipeline safety today.
Before we get into various pipeline safety issues, let me
give you a brief overview of where we stand today regarding the
safety of pipelines in this country.
According to PHMSA data, over the past 5 years there's been
on average nearly two reportable pipeline incidents every day
that cause the death or hospitalization of over seven people
every month.
These incidents have caused nearly $2.4 billion in property
damage and released over 18 million gallons of hazardous
liquids into the environment.
While progress has been made over the last 20 years and
pipelines are a critical part of our Nation's energy
infrastructure, pipelines are near our homes, schools, shopping
centers, lakes, rivers, and coastlines and we simply must do
better to protect our communities and the environment.
We thank the committee for releasing a strong bill for
discussion as part of this year's reauthorization process and
we also thank and recognize the Members from Massachusetts for
their efforts to introduce good legislation to address the
tragedy that occurred in the Merrimack Valley last year.
We support the vast majority of the provisions in these
bills. We certainly support the parts of these bills that make
it easier to pass needed regulations and to meaningfully
enforce those regulations.
This would include Section 4 of this committee's bill to
correct the unnecessary duplication of cost-benefit
requirements in the statute; Sections 8 and 9, making both the
civil and criminal penalties more meaningful; and Section 7
that helps to align these statutes with many others, allowing
citizens to petition the courts when PHMSA fails in its duty to
carry out congressional mandates.
It has long been understood that part of the pipeline
safety problem in this country is that PHMSA and its State
regulatory partners are often underfunded for the task at hand.
We thank Congress for their previous support to expand the
number of PHMSA inspectors and we strongly support the level of
appropriations in this committee's draft bill to support the
needed increases to the reimbursement rates for State programs,
allow PHMSA to better conduct data and risk analysis, their
special program implementation, and for enforcement and
regulatory efforts.
As the trust has pointed out for over a decade, according
to PHMSA there are over 435,000 miles of unregulated natural
gas gathering lines in this country, many of which are
functionally the same as gas transmission pipelines and present
similar hazards to the public and the environment.
We strongly support the change in definitions in Section 3
that would bring the higher pressure gathering lines under some
sort of Federal minimum standards.
We also believe that it's very important that the location
of these lines be known to regulators, emergency responders,
and surrounding communities. So we also hope you will amend
Section 60132 of the statute to remove the harmful clause that
exempts these pipelines from being included in the national
pipeline mapping system.
We really appreciate the provision of this committee's bill
in the Leonel Rondon Pipeline Safety Act that proposes to make
clear in the statute what PHMSA has failed to make clear in the
regulations.
For well over 20 years, the NTSB, Congress, and others have
tried to get PHMSA to implement meaningful rules regarding leak
detection and automated valves.
We support Section 5's effort to make this clear by adding
it directly to the statute. We also suggest that it be made
clear that PHMSA must adopt a clear standard for effectiveness
for any new rules regarding leak detection.
We support Section 2, 3, 4, and 6 of the Leonel Rondon
Pipeline Safety Act which clarifies important lessons
unfortunately learned through the Merrimack Valley tragedy.
We continue to hear complaints from local emergency
responders about the difficulty in obtaining meaningful
information about the pipelines that run through their
communities.
We support Section 6 of this bill that will go a long way
to alleviating this problem and ask that you ensure it includes
the information that NTSB has recommended be provided to
emergency responders.
The administration has also recently released the
Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines Enhancing Safety Act
of 2019.
While it's a substantially weaker bill than what this
committee has drafted, there are many good provisions in it
that we support, some of which are correctly aimed at fixing
issues learned in the Merrimack Valley tragedy.
There are also some troubling sections in the
administration's bill that we hope you will not adopt. Please
see our written testimony for specifics.
I see my time is almost up and so thank you again for
inviting me to testify today. I am glad to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lesniak follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Black for 5 minutes
for the purposes of an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW J. BLACK
Mr. Black. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member.
I am Andy Black, president and CEO of the Association of
Oil Pipe Lines. AOPL represents owners and operators of
pipelines transporting crude oil, refined petroleum products
like gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, and home heating oil, and
industrial products like propane and ethane.
Pipeline safety reauthorization legislation offers us an
opportunity to continue improvements in pipeline safety. We all
seek safer pipelines as the subcommittee's discussion draft
title calls for.
Reauthorization should be a place where we can collaborate,
work on proposals that bring stakeholders together, and protect
each other from harm.
Unfortunately, the discussion draft misses some
opportunities for a shared path of collaboration and eliminates
other opportunities in the law today.
Instead, the liquid pipelines industry asks that we move
forward with positive solutions to harness the benefits of
innovation and technology to improve pipeline safety, bring
stakeholders together to improve PHMSA programs and
regulations, and protect the public environment from harm.
Technology and innovation offer opportunities to move
pipeline safety forward. High-tech inspection tools can now
scan pipelines like an MRI or an ultrasound at the doctor's
office. And yet, crucial sessions of PHMSA's inspection and
maintenance regulations are nearly 20 years old and have gaps
that fail to address problems like cracking in pipelines.
AOPL recommends a pilot program to provide PHMSA the data
it needs to modernize and fill gaps in regulations. Improving
how PHMSA performs its pipeline safety mission is important to
liquid pipeline operators.
The industry joined with PHMSA, State regulators, pipeline
safety advocates, environmental advocates, and representatives
of organized labor to recommend creation of a voluntary
information sharing program.
This collaborative program, modelled after a successful FAA
program for the aviation industry and recommended by a past
Congress, would empower pipeline safety stakeholders to jointly
solve pipeline safety issues.
Unfortunately, authorization for this program is not in the
discussion draft. Instead, there are proposals that drive
stakeholders apart and make it hard for PHMSA to improve
pipeline safety.
The discussion draft eliminates requirements for PHMSA to
benefit from its technical advisory committees and takes away
seats at the table for safety advocacy groups, environmental
groups and pipeline operators during the rulemaking process.
The discussion would deprive the public of expert
discussion of the costs and benefits of proposals. The
discussion draft would even eliminate requirements that PHMSA
consider whether its regulations would be reasonable.
I can hardly imagine the subcommittee wants PHMSA to
consider only proposals that would be unreasonable.
The discussion draft proposal to add a criminal reckless
standard would chill a core component of pipeline safety.
Operators assess and rank the risks of their pipeline systems
and then perform preventative maintenance based on a
prioritization of risk.
Comprehensive risk management is at the heart of safety
management systems that have been encouraged by the NTSB and
PHMSA.
Changing the standard to reckless would lead to second
guessing, technical risk assessment decisions, with the benefit
of 20/20 hindsight to make a case that an operator should have
known that a risk would have caused an incident.
Pipeline operators also may be discouraged from openly
sharing information about incidents, a key component of our
programs to improve safety industry wide. Applying an ambiguous
legal standard of recklessness by criminalizing pipeline risk
assessment will not advance pipeline safety.
The discussion draft provision to require automatic shut
off valves on liquid pipelines would actually hurt pipeline
safety by creating the risk of quickly forcing closed pipeline
valves in an uncontrolled way, as the ranking member said,
leading to a pressure surge and possible pipeline rupture.
GAO studied this at the request of Congress and confirmed
several cases in the past where similar conditions led to
ruptures and releases of gasoline and crude oil.
Finally, the pipeline industry believes it is important to
protect the surrounding public and the environment from attacks
on pipelines. There are loopholes to close in Federal law that
prevent enforcement against dangerous valve-turning activity
condemned by pipeline safety advocates as well as the industry.
We commend PHMSA for putting forward a proposal to protect
the public and the environment from attacks.
Yesterday organized labor, through the International Union
of Organized Engineers, the Laborers' International Union of
North America, North America's Building Trade Unions, and the
United Association of Plumbers and Pipefitters added their
support for this effort, writing, ``For the safety of American
families, the environment, and the skilled trade workers
dedicated to safely building and maintaining our
infrastructure, Congress should prioritize closing those
loopholes in Federal law.''
We hope to work with subcommittee on tailored legislation
to address this safety priority. I hope we can come together
around these proposals for greater stakeholder collaboration,
greater use of new technologies and innovation, and greater
ways to improve PHMSA programs and protect the public from
harm.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Black follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Owesman--Osman?
Mr. Osman. Osman.
Mr. Rush [continuing]. Osman for 5 minutes for the purposes
of an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF C.J. OSMAN
Mr. Osman. Chairman Rush, Ranking Member Walden, Ranking
Member Upton, members of the subcommittee, good morning.
My name is C.J. Osman, and I am the director of operations,
safety, and integrity at the Interstate Natural Gas Association
of American, INGAA.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. INGAA
appreciates the important work that the subcommittee is
undertaking and we look forward to working with you on the
reauthorization bill that enhances pipeline safety in America.
INGAA's members transport natural gas through a network of
transmission pipelines that are analogous to the interstate
highway system. These are large capacity critical
infrastructure systems that span multiple States or regions to
bring our Nation's natural gas to market.
That natural gas is used to heat our homes, to cook our
food, to power our Nation's industries, and to generate
electricity. Our industry is relentlessly committed to its
obligation to the communities we serve to operate safely,
reliably, and responsibly.
INGAA asks the subcommittee to consider four key points in
its deliberations to reauthorize the Pipeline Safety Act.
First, INGAA strongly supports updating the act to reflect
modern pipeline safety technologies and engineering practices.
Many PHMSA regulations are outdated, which can create a barrier
to implementing 21st century programs.
Therefore, INGAA supports PHMSA's legislative proposals to
implement a new technology pilot program and to require timely
incorporation of consensus technical standards by reference.
Additionally, Congress should direct PHMSA to complete its
ongoing rulemaking to update the 50-year-old class location
change regulations.
Second, Congress should embrace the recommendations of
PHMSA's advisory committees when updating the Pipeline Safety
Act. The Gas Pipeline Advisory Committee provides technical and
policy input on PHMSA's natural gas rulemakings.
The advisory committee is comprised of equal representation
from members of the public, Federal and State agencies, and
natural gas operators.
INGAA is concerned that the subcommittee's proposed changes
to the maximum allowable operating pressure and direct
assessment requirements contradict PHMSA's pending gas
transmission safety rules and would overrule years of advisory
committee discussions.
For example, while spike testing is an important tool, it
is an aggressive technique that is not relevant to confirming
maximal allowable operating pressure. If enacted, the broad
application of spike testing proposed in the subcommittee's
discussion draft would risk damaging our Nation's natural gas
infrastructure and not make it safer.
Additionally, professional engineer licenses are not
necessary for all pipeline engineers. Different tasks require
different knowledge, training, and skills. Instead of
restrictive licensure requirement, INGAA supports the
comprehensive management of change requirement in PHMSA's
pending gas transmission rules. This approach will more
effectively ensure a competent technical review.
Furthermore, instead of issuing a self-executing mandate
directing operators to make more information available to the
public and to first responders, Congress should leverage the
expertise of PHMSA and the diversity of the agency's advisory
committees to evaluate this issue.
Third, INGAA urges the subcommittee to retain important
aspects of the PHMSA rulemaking process. Congress should retain
the cost-benefit analysis requirement in the Pipeline Safety
Act.
This requirement ensures that PHMSA evaluates available
alternatives to identify the best option when developing new
regulations and it requires a transparent public review of
PHMSA's analysis.
No PHMSA regulation has ever been overturned on the basis
of the cost-benefit analysis requirement demonstrating that the
act currently provides a clear legally defensible standard.
Additionally, adding a mandamus provision to allow citizens
to sue PHMSA would not enhance pipeline safety. PHMSA's best
position to make decisions regarding how to regulate pipelines
and Congress and sufficient oversight tools to require the
agency to meet its statutory obligations.
INGAA shares the subcommittee's frustration over PHMSA's
delays in completing new rulemakings. But rather than bypassing
the rulemaking process through self-executing mandates from
mandamus, Congress should strengthen PHMSA's rulemaking
capabilities.
Therefore, we strongly support solutions such as the
subcommittee's direct hire proposal.
Fourth, several of the proposals would make unnecessary or
harmful changes to the enforcement provisions in the Pipeline
Safety Act. This would encourage litigation and nondisclosure
at the expense of collaboration and safety culture.
There is no need to modify the existing criminal provision
for operator violations. Federal prosecutors have successfully
brought criminal cases against pipeline operators where
appropriate and there is no evidence that the current statutory
language has created a bar to criminal prosecution.
Furthermore, PHMSA's civil penalty authority is not
lacking. The current limits exceed those and many other health,
safety, and environmental protection statutes.
In addition to fines, PHMSA issues corrective action orders
which can produce immediate safety benefits.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. INGAA
stands ready support a timely reauthorization bill that
enhances the safety of our Nation's pipeline infrastructure.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Osman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rush. The Chair thanks all of the witnesses for their
opening statements. We've now concluded opening statements, and
we will now move toward Member questioning.
Members will have 5 minutes to ask questions about
witnesses and I will start this process by recognizing myself
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lesniak, in your testimony you note that currently
Section 60132 exempts gathering lines from the National
Pipeline Mapping system, meaning that there is no way to know
exactly where these lines are actually located.
Can you discuss with us the main differences between
transmission lines, which are regulated, and gathering lines,
which are not?
Do gathering lines pose a similar public safety risk as
transmission lines and, if so, does the language in the
discussion draft help address this issue or is there additional
language needed to regulate these lines and make them a part of
the mapping system?
Mr. Lesniak. Thank you for that question.
I spent a good part of my career with the city of Austin as
emergency responder and these gathering lines, many of them,
are indistinguishable from gas transmission pipelines, and they
ought to be--at least the location and basic information about
these lines ought to be available to local governments, local
emergency responders, and the general public.
To me, it makes no sense that I can go online using the
National Pipeline Mapping System and find out where gas
transmission lines are in my community and emergency responders
can do the exact same thing so that they can be prepared to
respond to those kinds of incidents on those pipelines, but a
gathering line with the exact same type of characteristics that
information is not available to local emergency responders.
And so the answer is yes, I think that that's a critical
piece of the proposed bill and is critical to keeping our
community safe.
Mr. Rush. I want to go to the issue of working with issues
at PHMSA. Specifically, does PHMSA have the sufficient number
of professional staff with the right expertise to handle all of
the responsibility that falls under the agency's jurisdiction
including conducting pipeline inspection and finalizing its
rulemaking?
Again, does the discussion draft help address this issue
and are there other provisions that we should consider adding
to this bill?
Mr. Lesniak. You know, in my opinion, I think PHMSA is
chronically underfunded and understaffed. They compete with the
industry, with--for expertise and struggle with keeping that
expertise within the agency as they develop experts.
And so I think the direct hire provision in the discussion
draft is very helpful for that. I think that many of the
stakeholders, industry and pipeline safety advocates, share
that concern about PHMSA's staffing, and anything that Congress
can do to facilitate hiring and retention of critical staff for
PHMSA is a good thing and this bill goes in that direction.
Mr. Rush. And then, Mr. Lesniak, Section 6 of the
discussion draft entitled ``Community Right to Know in
Emergency Preparedness'' is designed to make critical
operational information available to local communities and to
first responders.
Additionally, Mr. Lesniak, Section 6 of H.R. 2139 requires
the production and maintenance of complete up-to-date records
of distribution systems and the requirement that these records
be available to the relevant regulators.
While these provisions would strengthen the engagement of
pipeline operators with local emergency planning committees and
local first responders while also providing the public with
frequently requested information, why are these so critical to
both safety reasons and building the public trust?
Mr. Lesniak. And, again, as based on my career as a first
responder, you know, I was surprised when I got involved in
pipeline issues how difficult it was to get really critical
technical information about pipelines in our community.
It really is dependent on the operator of that pipeline and
you have got operators that are much more open about sharing
technical information about their pipelines and you have got
operators that just refuse to provide essentially any
information at all that they're not required to provide by
statute.
And so anything that Congress can do to level that playing
field so that local first responders can get that information
about the pipelines in their communities is critical because of
the things that I found, working with the Austin, Texas, fire
department is they know very little about the pipelines in
their community.
The pipeline operators historically in our community
provide just the very basic awareness of information and if an
incident were to happen in our community I think that our first
responders would be woefully unprepared and that information
ought to be provided to them on a routine basis.
Mr. Rush. Thank you.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Upton, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do have a lot of
questions and I am going to try to keep my questions brief and,
hopefully, your answers will be brief so I can go through them.
But I am going to formally draft these up as a letter to
each of you for you to formally respond and if you can do that
as quickly as you can, knowing that we are on somewhat of a
timetable here that would be good.
Mr. Osman, you made a good point in your testimony about
the draft legislation's removal of the cost-benefit analysis
and inclusion of mandamus civil suits speeding up the pace of
PHMSA's rulemaking.
I appreciate that. Does--in your opinion, does the draft
legislation encourage collaboration among pipeline safety
stakeholders and advisory committees during consideration of
any new regulations?
Mr. Osman. No, not as much as it could.
Mr. Upton. And Ms. Sames--Ms. Sames, does the draft
legislation preserve effective State pipeline replacement and
upgrade programs?
I say that because we replaced a pipeline a number of years
ago in Michigan, which as a good thing, and the old pipeline
was left in place. But how does this draft legislation impact
something like that?
Ms. Sames. It doesn't address it.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Black, does the draft legislation authorize
PHMSA to allow operators to incorporate new safety technologies
or best practices that may not be addressed in the regulations?
Mr. Black. No.
Mr. Upton. And does the draft legislation address the
safety of inactive pipelines at all or not?
Mr. Black. No.
Mr. Upton. Does the draft legislation incentivize the
timely updating of regs to incorporate the latest industry
standards?
Mr. Black. No, and we wish it would.
Mr. Upton. And can you provide us maybe with some
constructive language? And does the draft legislation
discourage folks from attacking pipeline facilities, something
I think a lot of us are concerned about?
Mr. Black. No, and we wish it would.
Mr. Upton. And what does the draft do on cybersecurity?
Mr. Black. It doesn't have any provisions on cybersecurity.
Mr. Upton. Does the draft legislation preserve and support
the years of ongoing work to update both gas and liquid
pipeline regulations?
Mr. Black. Not directly, no.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Osman, do you have a comment on that, too?
Mr. Osman. No, it contradicts it and undoes it.
Mr. Upton. So what does it do to encourage pipeline
operators to share information about the lessons learned? I
mean, that's one of the things that prompted us years ago to
look at pipeline accidents--what happened.
I've had some pipelines break not too far from my district,
but and some also--we had a gas pipeline that broke in my
district and, you know, careful effort was made to test
forensically in fact what exactly happened so that improvements
could be made so that we wouldn't have an issue later on in any
community.
This particular incident in my home county was--thank
goodness it was in a potato farm so there was nobody around.
But they were able to get the evidence from that break and be
able to make some recommendations.
But, to me, that's something that ought to be shared from
experiences that were made or from happenings that occurred.
Mr. Osman. If the subcommittee were to authorize a
voluntary information sharing program it would encourage
discussion of incident lessons, and if the subcommittee moves
forward with our criminal reckless standard it discourages that
open sharing across companies.
Mr. Upton. Yes. Does the draft legislation incentivize
operators to adopt best practices or exceed minimal Federal
safety standards?
Mr. Osman. No, and we would encourage the administration
provision that calls for timely incorporation for reference.
Mr. Upton. Have any of you looked at--I believe PHMSA
actually had a proposal that we've not looked at formally--
we've not had it and they're not here to testify today.
Mr. Osman. Yes. We support the proposal administration bill
calling for regular timely incorporation into regulations of
best practices.
Mr. Upton. So one of my questions will be that I provide in
writing is could each of you and your organizations take a look
at that PHMSA proposal and make recommendations as this is a
good thing, this is a bad thing, this is how you might alter
that? Is that OK?
Mr. Osman. Yes.
Mr. Upton. Mr. Lesniak, is that OK?
Mr. Lesniak. Yes, we'd be happy to do so.
Mr. Upton. Great. Well, I look forward to working with all
of you. This is a really important issue. We have millions of
miles of pipelines and we can always do better, and we need to
learn from those mistakes and work together in a way to ensure
that the operators and our communities in fact are safe.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back and look forward
to working with you as this issue moves forward. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Doyle for 5 minutes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our
panellists today.
I appreciate the opportunity to consider legislation
related to pipeline safety. Pennsylvania is in the midst of a
natural gas boom which is a tremendous resource but only if
it's developed in a way that protects human health and the
environment.
In Pennsylvania, fracking is often very close to or within
communities and pipelines run through neighborhoods and high-
density areas. So I take this issue very seriously and I look
forward to examining the ways to strengthen current regulations
and protections.
The natural gas industry has grown rapidly in Pennsylvania
in recent years while PHMSA funding for States have not kept
pace.
Ms. Sames, Mr. Lesniak, or Mr. Black, do you believe that
the States have sufficient resources to support enforcement in
oversight of pipelines under their jurisdiction such as
intrastate pipelines and the siting of hazardous liquid
pipelines? And maybe you could just do down, very quickly, and
answer that.
Ms. Sames. AGA has always been supportive of more resources
for the States.
Mr. Lesniak. Yes. Pipeline Safety Trust agrees that the
States are underfunded.
Mr. Black. States should have the resources they need.
Mr. Doyle. So, Mr. Lesniak, you mention in your testimony
the importance of additional funding for States to close the
gap between the amount that PHMSA is allowed to fund State
pipeline safety programs and the amount that they actually do.
Can you elaborate on that?
Mr. Lesniak. We've got more in our written testimony and we
can--be happy to get you more written--more detailed
information on that.
I do think it's a critical issue, especially in States like
Pennsylvania and Texas, other States that have seen rapid
growth in oil and gas exploration and production and we are
seeing a huge boom in pipeline construction and it's clearly
outpaced the abilities of States to keep up with it.
Mr. Doyle. Pennsylvania's natural gas infrastructure dates
back to the 19th century. So aging infrastructure is a concern
for our region also.
Ms. Sames, in your testimony you described the progress
that's been made in replacing cast iron pipe with plastic
piping for distribution, main, and service lines. How are your
members prioritizing the location for service upgrades and does
this consider aspects such as terrain and the risk of mine
subsidence as is the case in a lot of southwestern
Pennsylvania?
Ms. Sames. It covers all of that. So when you're doing
replacement programs you're looking at a number of factors.
You're looking at the materials, the age, the construction
techniques, the environment that the pipeline is in, the
environment around the pipeline and what you're learning
through leak surveys.
So for things like cast iron, you want to replace the
smaller lines first because those historically are the ones
that are more fragile to breaking. Where you're getting larger
pipelines that you have had absolutely no issues, maybe you
prioritize those a little bit later because they seem to be
functioning really well.
But ground movement is something that will cause an
additional risk on cast iron. So you want to get rid of cast
iron where there are--where there are ground movements like
coal subsidence.
So yes, it's all taken into account.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. I co-sponsored legislation with my
colleague, Mr. Olson, to address the shortage of qualified
staff at FERC.
So I am glad to see language included in the Pallone bill
to address the similar staffing issue at PHMSA. Can anyone
please speak to the staffing needs at PHMSA and do you think
that PHMSA would be able to adequately address this issue
without additional authority and funding? Maybe, Mr. Lesniak,
what do you think?
Mr. Lesniak. We can certainly provide you more information
on that. But as, I think, we've all mentioned, PHMSA is
chronically understaffed and they have--they struggle with
targeting priority areas.
Mr. Doyle. Let me ask you also, what are your views on the
process of siting hazardous pipelines? Do you think PHMSA
should have a role in this process?
Mr. Lesniak. Absolutely they should have a role. Safety is
not addressed during the siting process. The agencies will tell
you that are involved in siting that it's not referenced in the
regulations and that PHMSA today voluntarily participates in
the siting process for many pipelines. But I think it should be
clearly addressed in the statute so that it's a clear
responsibility for PHMSA.
Mr. Doyle. What about you, Mr. Black? What do you think?
Mr. Black. PHMSA has a comprehensive series of construction
codes that affect pipeline regulation--pipeline construction,
excuse me.
They're there watching pipeline construction. Any pipeline
that is going to go into service must pass a hydrostatic
pressure test before it begins operation and PHMSA always has
the authority to shut a pipeline down if it believes it's safe.
We believe there's no gap here. PHMSA has a clear role in
safe operations of pipelines including construction.
Mr. Doyle. I see my time is up, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I
yield back.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Walden, the ranking member, is recognized for
5 minutes.
Mr. Walden. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rush. Good morning.
Mr. Walden. Thanks for having this hearing. Thanks to our
witnesses for your testimony, which informs our work.
I have to confess I am a little disappointed we are moving
ahead with a legislative hearing when we don't have PHMSA here
today. I think we will benefit from their response to our QFRs
from the prior hearing and when they can actually be here.
And so I hope we are not going to rush into a markup
without thoroughly vetting to making significant improvements
to this draft and I think you all have weighed in in areas you
think it can be improved upon.
And so we want to get this right. We believe in pipeline
safety and it needs to be a bipartisan effort as it always has
been. So I want to focus on a couple of things the draft
legislation deals with. And so to each of you I've got a couple
of questions.
What are we doing to encourage pipeline operators to
continue innovating and incorporating the most cost--the most
cutting-edge technologies and best practices? Are our
regulations keeping pace?
A pretty broad question, but Mr. Black?
Mr. Black. I will take it. The regulations are not keeping
pace with innovation. PHMSA is slow. We've encouraged the
committee to authorize a pilot program modelled after that they
have for motor carrier.
The administration supported this. This would let them road
test new technologies and approaches and update their
regulations more frequently. It's very important.
Mr. Walden. Do each of you agree with that statement?
Ms. Sames. I definitely agree. The process now, when new
technology comes out, there's typically a pretty long delay
where it has to be pilot tested. States need to weigh in. It
all hampers technology enhancements quickly.
So anything that can be done to advance that. I think the
administration bill does have information on a pilot on new
technology. I know I am supportive of it. We want to get
technology out faster.
Mr. Walden. All right.
Mr. Lesniak?
Mr. Lesniak. We do have some questions about a potential
pilot program. We are in favor of bringing in technology that
makes pipelines safer. But if we are going to put stuff in the
ground, we want to make sure that it's safe before it gets put
in the ground.
Mr. Walden. Yes. Sure.
Mr. Osman?
Mr. Osman. Absolutely. You know, we agree with PHMSA's
proposal for the pilot program. I think we need Congress' help
to fill in a gap in the process right now to test those
technologies that look like they're ready, but we don't know
for sure----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Osman [continuing]. Until we can implement them in the
real world. So we are very supportive of that particular----
Mr. Walden. For everybody's benefit.
I also believe we should consider the voluntary program to
promote sharing of information and lessons learned across the
industry, and I know some of you have referenced that.
Do you all agree that that's a good way to go here on
lessons learned, a voluntary program?
Ms. Sames. AGA definitely does. We do a lot of sharing
behind the scenes among operators. We want to be able to share
more with the regulators, but we need a safe harbor in order to
do that. We see most of it in some of the provisions. It's
still lacking in a few areas.
Mr. Walden. OK.
Mr. Lesniak?
Mr. Lesniak. We do think that the VIS program has
potential. We want to make sure that it's not a substitute for
withholding specific information about specific pipelines and
incidents.
Mr. Walden. Got it.
Mr. Black?
Mr. Black. Months have been spent on this--on it with a
group convened by PHMSA of a broad collection of stakeholders.
They've come up with a report from that committee on a proposal
for Congress on a way to get operators to participate in that.
We urge the committee to adopt that.
Mr. Walden. All right.
Mr. Osman?
Mr. Osman. I will just disagree with one point that Mr.
Black made. That committee has worked for years----
Mr. Black. Yes.
Mr. Walden. Oh, not once. Got it.
Mr. Osman [continuing]. To recommendations for how to do
this the right way. So----
Mr. Walden. Yes. So you think we ought to get on with it?
Is that what you're saying?
Mr. Osman. Yes. Both the need--we need the work from
Congress. We need the protections in the statute to make that.
Mr. Walden. Got it. All right.
Let me ask you about cybersecurity. There are, obviously,
threats to the pipeline system as there are to the electric
grid, as there are to you name it. There are hackers out there.
What tools do you need from us when it comes to
cybersecurity that are lacking in this bill that you can talk
about here?
Ms. Sames. Do you want to go first?
Mr. Black. We take cybersecurity very seriously. I think
Congress has acted on this in the FAA reauthorization last year
to elevate the role of cyber within TSA, bring more resources
there.
We encourage Congress to appropriate more funds for TSA to
do its work on cyber. Attention on this issue from government
agencies and Congress can only help.
Mr. Walden. Yes. I am not--I am not--I don't know about the
ranking member, Mr. Upton, but TSA has been less than
cooperative with this committee as we delve into these issues
and, you know, I am not overly impressed.
So I don't know that they're going to get more money. Mr.
Upton, I don't know if you want to weigh in here.
Mr. Upton. They're going to be checking you at the Pre-
Check.
Mr. Walden. I know. I know. I know.
Mr. Upton. I've been randomly selected, like, the last 5
weeks in a row.
Mr. Walden. Yes, that's right. That's right.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Upton. Just have a smile on your face.
Mr. Walden. That's right. My time has expired on that note
and--yes. Thank you all for what you're doing. We want to get
this right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the hearing.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. McNerney for 5
minutes.
Mr. McNerney. From the great State of California. You
forgot.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Rush. From the great State of southern California?
Mr. McNerney. Northern Cal. Oh my gosh.
Mr. Rush. Northern California.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lesniak, you referenced the 2010 San Bruno explosion
that killed eight people. It took over an hour for crews to
shut off the gas line after that explosion. You pointed out
that 19 years ago Congress first started debating automatic
spill detection and shut off valves, both which would have
assisted in that process.
Can you speak to the importance of leak and rupture
detection and the automatic or remote control shut off valves?
Mr. Lesniak. Yes. Thank you for that question.
I think it's critical. Most new pipelines have both
automatic and remote controlled valves in them. We ought to be
retrofitting all pipelines with those.
There may be very specific unique instances where it's not
appropriate. But I think that those are very rare and that I
think this ought to be standard of practice.
It's commonly used in the industry. It ought to be--it
ought to be included in the statute.
Mr. McNerney. Well, the ranking member mentioned his
concern about automatic shut off valves and so did one of the
witnesses in liquid pipelines. Is that an issue?
Mr. Lesniak. If a valve is improperly closed, it can cause
problems, can cause a release on a pipeline. Absolutely.
But automatic valves are used routinely in the industry. So
they've, apparently, addressed that problem.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Osman, a major component of the bills that we discussed
was the technology. What additional technologies do you view as
being essential to modernizing pipeline safety?
Mr. Osman. Thank you for the question.
We have tremendous amount of opportunities today that we
didn't have even 5, 10, 15 years ago to enhance the safety of
our pipeline system with today's technologies.
In particular, the ones you will hear us talking about the
most is the new internal inspection devices and new methods of
analyzing the data that those devices produce. These are tools
that are based on the same technology as an ultrasound machine
or an MRI at the doctor's office and they can detect problems
inside the pipeline years before that problem actually results
in the pipeline.
Mr. McNerney. That's amazing.
Mr. Osman. It is amazing.
Mr. McNerney. What's one of the barriers to adopting that?
Mr. Osman. First, PHMSA needs to complete the pending
rulemaking that they've been working on in which everyone at
this table is supportive of.
But going forward, beyond that, as we've talked about, we
need opportunities to pilot these technologies moving forward
so it does not take so many years to update the regulation, and
one of the--one of the barriers to updating those regulations
is not having that field-tested data and that pilot program
that PHMSA proposed would help us go a long way.
Mr. McNerney. But we heard a lot about complaining about
how PHMSA is so slow in their rule making. What, besides
additional resources, would help in that process?
Briefly, for all the panellist, starting with Ms. Sames.
Ms. Sames. I would love to see a process that is done with
in DOT to move things faster. What I am seeing is that the
technical folks within PHMSA do a really good job with moving
things quickly once the advisory committees have finished their
deliberations.
But there seems to be a delay from PHMSA to the Office of
Management and Budget. I don't know where the delay is
occurring. But, to me, that's an area that could be
investigated.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Lesniak. Yes, I would agree. PHMSA is doing their work.
Often it seems to be--get caught in the secretary's office or
in OMB and, as we mentioned earlier, we think this duplicative
cost-benefit analysis that's required in the current statute
also slows things down.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Black?
Mr. Black. I think a legislative analogy, rifle shot bills
are often easier to move than Christmas tree bills or omnibus.
We believe that PHMSA made strategic mistakes on gas and liquid
regulations in the last Congress to lump a bunch of many
complex diverse issues into large mega rules that just
overwhelm the development process and the review process, and
that's the primary reason that we are waiting for them today.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Osman?
Mr. Osman. PHMSA has two advisory committees with 30 people
on them total, have a tremendous diversity of background and
extent of experience in the pipeline industry, in the public
space, in the regulator space.
PHMSA should use those advisory committees earlier on to
take input into development of rulemakings to make the
rulemakings stronger from the get-got. So less of that work
needs to be done at the back end when the advisory committees
see the rulemaking proposal.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Lesniak, you indicated that there are 435 miles of
unregulated pipeline. What are the barriers to regulating those
pipelines?
Mr. Lesniak. Thank you. It's 435,000 miles of pipelines.
Mr. McNerney. What did I say?
Mr. Lesniak. The barriers is that it's not provided for in
statute at all.
Mr. McNerney. Right. All right.
Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. Thank you for your
responses.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Latta for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Well, thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you very much for holding today's hearing and I would also like
to begin by just echoing the ranking member of the full
committee and also the subcommittee's disappointment the
majority took a partisan approach to a historically bipartisan
topic by drafting this legislation for us in a vacuum.
My hope is that because it is a discussion draft that the
majority intends to work with us to move a bipartisan package
forward that I am very interested in working with my
colleagues, especially on using the best practices in
technology to find the solutions leading to increased safety.
Mr. Black, if I could begin with you. In your written
testimony you proposed a pilot program for a new pipeline
safety technologies and best practices.
PHMSA also submitted a proposal for a pipeline safety pilot
program to give them some regulatory flexibility to allow new
technology and safety methods.
What's the problem you're trying to solve with this pilot
program and is this a situation where the regulations haven't
kept pace with the innovation out there?
Mr. Black. The integrity management regulations for liquid
pipelines are about 20 years old now and they have not kept
pace. They have gaps, including cracking in pipelines. PHMSA
has been slow, despite their efforts.
A pilot program that motor carrier has that the
administration has now proposed would let PHMSA test on
operators of their choosing methods, approaches, technologies
that they believe would have an equivalent level of safety and
gather data.
We believe that data, when they gather it on operators they
choose, would help inform their regulations and speed up their
rule making process so then they could apply those lessons to
all in industry.
We are supportive of the proposal. We think there should be
a few more provisions requiring reporting to Congress about the
lessons from pilot programs and a trigger that requires them to
then take those lessons that are positive and incorporate them
in regulations.
Mr. Latta. Let me follow up, because you said that you're
looking at something that's 20 years old, and two things. One,
why is it taking PHMSA this long to catch up with something
that's over 20 years?
And at the same time, would you describe some of the cost
cut--or the cutting-edge technologies and best practices that
your member companies would like to implement?
Mr. Black. Well, the technology is growing leaps and bounds
in terms of pipeline inspection. Not just the tools that can
run through a pipeline but then also the analytics that can
happen once the inline inspection device we call a smart pig
comes out of the pike.
So we are learning more. The regulations are old. There's a
floor. Pipeline operators are going well above them because of
your best practices that we incorporate and we suggest PHMSA
often incorporate in the regulation.
They can update these. I spoke a moment ago about my
personal thought and our organization's thought about the delay
by PHMSA. It's taking too many issues and putting them in the
large rule making processes that are just slowing down.
It shouldn't be 20 years. Hopefully, it won't be 20 years
again.
Mr. Latta. Well, let me ask, does the draft legislation
that's before us include anything like this encourage the
operators to adopt these new technologies on a voluntary basis?
Mr. Black. In the administration draft, yes. In the
discussion draft from the subcommittee, no.
Mr. Latta. OK. Thank you very much.
To Ms. Sames and Mr. Osman and Mr. Black, if I could kind
of ask some quick questions here.
As you know, the States are overseeing more than 80 percent
of the Nation's pipeline infrastructure, especially the gas
distribution pipelines that connect our homes and businesses to
the main transmission system.
Could you talk a little bit about the State programs and
the relationship your member companies have with the States and
the local pipeline safety regulators?
Ms. Sames?
Ms. Sames. Yes. So if you--at the State level, especially
if you're a larger operator, you're probably having multiple
State inspectors in your office every day. They're in the
field.
They're with the operator. They're looking at various
things, which is why the State program is so important and why
AGA has always been supportive of additional funding for the
States.
They're the ones regulating and if--they need the proper
training, the proper resources to do that. Unlike the PHMSA
regulations, the PHMSA regulators, the auditors--I think the
interstates and the liquid industry see them a little less
often than they do than we see the State operators at the State
level.
PHMSA has a responsibility to provide oversights of the
States, the State inspectors. They're relying on the State
regulators to go out and do their job, which also gets back to
why PHMSA needs additional resources.
Mr. Latta. OK. And I know, Mr. Chairman, my time is
expiring, but I will submit my questions in writing to the
witnesses.
Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
In his testimony, Mr. Black of the oil pipeline industry
states that, and I quote, ``Applying an ambiguous legal
standard of recklessness will not advance pipeline safety.''
Mr. Black would also have you believe, in my opinion, that
requiring a prosecutor to prove that someone is both knowing
and willful is standard whereas in reality most statutes
require proof that someone is either knowing or willful so
rather than and/or.
So I wanted to ask Mr. Lesniak, is reckless and ambiguous
legal standard or is there a precedent in statute for holding
someone accountable for reckless behavior?
Mr. Lesniak. Thank you. It's far from ambiguous or unusual.
It's commonly used in other Federal statute, and in fact in
most States it's included in the motor vehicle code and other
criminal statutes.
Mr. Pallone. And then doesn't the current hazardous
material safety statute contain criminal penalties of someone
who willfully or recklessly violates a requirement of the
Federal Hazardous Material Transportation law?
Mr. Lesniak. Yes. In fact it does.
Mr. Pallone. So I think this is neither novel nor ambiguous
and, in my view, it will certainly improve accountability and
safety.
Mr. Lesniak, let me ask you another question. What do you
think has been the hold up on the mandates from the 2011 and
2016 acts? Do you think that this is due to the duplicative and
prescript or cost-benefit required in current law?
Mr. Lesniak. Yes, it does. Yes, I think it is a big part of
it. It's not the only reason but it is one of the key reasons
and we need to get that addressed.
Mr. Pallone. I mean, I think the statutory cost-benefit
analysis, clearly, ties the secretary's hands. So my question
is would eliminating it help prevent the extreme delays we have
seen from occurring again?
Mr. Lesniak. Yes, we think it would.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you.
Let me go to Mr. Lesniak again about this mandamus issue.
In the aftermath of the San Bruno incident, the city of San
Francisco was blocked, quote, ``from forcing PHMSA to uphold
its statutory responsibilities'' and this happened because the
court held that the law did not allow for mandamus type citizen
suits to be brought against the Federal Government.
So, Mr. Lesniak, do we need the ability for citizens,
States, and local governments to be able to compel PHMSA to do
its job?
Mr. Lesniak. I think there's no question. You know, if you
think the delays that we are seeing, the Congress gets
frustrated with these delays, with implementing the
regulations, how do you think a community like San Francisco,
San Bruno, Edison, Bellingham feel when they have incidents and
or they have pipelines in their communities that they have
concerns about and they can't get PHMSA to act?
Congress can hold these agencies accountable but it may
take years, if at all, and the public needs to have the ability
to go to court to get these agencies to implement these
regulations. Congress is a representative of the people. The
people ought to have the ability to enforce the laws Congress
passes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
I wanted to ask you, you know, the industry--from their
testimony the Interstate Natural Gas Associations seems, in my
opinion--I mean, I am putting words in their mouth but from
what I can see from their testimony is perfectly fine--they're
perfectly fine with the status quo of rule makings that take a
decade or more.
They seem to suggest we don't need to use modern technology
like automatic or remote valves or smart pigs and that we
shouldn't review the integrity of pipelines that are half a
century old or older.
According to the testimony, a rule making process that
never ends seems to be fine and anything Congress might do to
ensure faster results or improve pipeline safety and hold
operators more accountable, and I quote, would overrule years
of work in developing new pipeline safety regulations for gas
transmission pipelines.
But, of course, what good--I mean, in my opinion, what good
does it do the public to have a rulemaking process that goes on
and on and never produces a rule? I mean, that's my problem.
So let me ask you, do you think that the industry's
opposition to new safety requirements is contributing to the
growing opposition of landowners to having a pipeline run
through their States, towns, and back yards? Because this is
what I hear all the time.
Is that--is this opposition to these new safety
requirements contributing to that?
Mr. Lesniak. I think it is. I think that the industry does
throw comments and engage in the rulemaking process sometimes
in a way that's counterproductive and slows down the process,
and for some in the industry I think it works in their favor--
that they would prefer to preserve the status quo.
Mr. Pallone. But then at the same time you have this
growing opposition from the landowners, and I think, you know,
this only contributes to that. So I don't know that it's in
their interest, but whatever.
Thank you. Thanks so much.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Olson.
Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair, and welcome to our four
expert witnesses.
My first question is a simple yes or no. Are pipelines
safer than trucks, trains, ships for transporting liquid and
gas products?
Ms. Sames, yes or no?
Ms. Sames. Yes, based on DOT's statistics.
Mr. Olson. Mr. Lesniak, yes or no? Pipelines safer?
Mr. Lesniak. Yes, but it's an apples and oranges
comparison.
Mr. Olson. Mr. Black?
Mr. Black. Yes.
Mr. Osman. Yes.
Mr. Black. Mr. Osman agrees. So we all agree that pipelines
are as close as we get to perfection transporting products--
liquid products--right now with what we have in our world.
Another simple yes or no question for all of you. As Mr.
Doyle mentioned, we have a bill that allows FERC to exceed the
Federal pay limits for the expert employees that are getting
taken by the private sector basically because they don't have
the money to pay them.
Would you all support--your organizations--something like
that for PHMSA? Because we've heard over and over manpower is a
problem. How about allowing PHMSA to pay more than the Federal
minimum?
Ms. Sames?
Ms. Sames. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Lesniak. Yes.
Mr. Black. We support the Federal Government for PHMSA
inspectors being able to pay more to attract and retain
inspectors.
Mr. Olson. Mr. Osman?
Mr. Osman. Yes.
Mr. Olson. There we go. OK.
Let's talk about PHMSA. Right now, they're in the middle of
a careful effort to set new rules for gathering lines. Moving
to the suburbs of Houston, Texas, the energy capital of the
world, I know how important these lines are to production of
mostly oil and natural gas.
They're important for the safety they provide and also the
ability to expand the system, and while gathering lines may
look like other pipelines, they're very, very different because
they have very low pressures compared to pipelines that
transport the product from Texas up there to New England.
And it would seem to me that our draft legislation is
abetting PHMSA's work with their efforts for new rules for
gathering lines.
And this is for you, Mr. Black, and you, Mr. Osman. Can you
talk about how these lines are regulated today and what PHMSA
is doing--we think they're going when they update these
regulations and what are the costs of Congress stepping in and
expanding PHMSA's jurisdiction while they're still trying to
get a handle on new rules?
Mr. Osman. Thank you for the question.
Of course we agree that it's important that all pipelines
are safe. Our members, INGAA, represent the interstate and
natural gas transmission pipelines. We don't represent
gathering pipelines so I can't get into the specifics there.
I will say from a process perspective PHMSA's advisory
committee is meeting next week to try to advance that gathering
rule making forward and if recent history is any indication,
they're going to be successful in doing so.
Mr. Olson. Mr. Black?
Mr. Black. This new effort has been about gas gathering.
Liquids often is already regulated by PHMSA above certain--
below certain--above certain diameters and thresholds.
It's been primarily a gas-gathering push.
Mr. Olson. My final question is for you, Ms. Sames and Mr.
Black and Mr. Osman one more time. I've heard over and over
today in this hearing and out back home about how long it takes
PHMSA to set new rules to--for these pipeline systems and
that's why I have concern we are going to actually slow that
process down with these new writs of mandamus.
This new law will encourage more lawsuits from special
interest groups with no standing and also leave the back door
rules settled through sue and settle and going through a back
door is never safe as opposed to going through a front door.
So my question for all of you all is do you think this
discussion draft's mandamus provision would impact the quality
and pace of PHMSA's rule makings? Would it hurt it?
Ms. Sames. Yes.
Mr. Black. Yes. If we think PHMSA is overwhelmed by
congressional mandates, think about how they'd be overwhelmed
with litigation from groups that can choose what to sue on.
We think court-forced action would usurp the role of
Congress and setting priorities would divert them from whatever
they think their highest priority is and it would create the
risk of sue and settle rulemaking outside of the process where
all stakeholders have an opportunity to participate. I think it
hurts.
Mr. Olson. Mr. Osman?
Mr. Osman. I agree with my colleagues. We are all
frustrated about the pace of rule makings and we are not happy
with the status quo. But we do not think the mandamus provision
is going to speed things up.
We think we need more focussed decision making from the
agency and we need to do what we can to help them get the
resources that they need to move these important rule makings
forward.
Mr. Olson. Thank you. I am out of time.
Mr. Lesniak, one compliment for you being from Austin,
Texas. The bowl game we had with the Longhorns against the
Georgia Bulldogs. Bevo, our Longhorn mascot, tore into that
little bulldog. So, thank you. Made Texas proud.
Mr. Lesniak. Hook 'em.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Olson. There you go. Hook 'em. Yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Loebsack for 5
minutes.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Chairman Rush, Ranking Member
Upton, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today as
well. I am pleased that the committee is holding this hearing
on this incredibly important issue--pipeline safety in America.
And before I go any further I should mention too that I
think that what we are talking about today while we are talking
a lot of about regulation and all the rest, I think it also
points up how important a new infrastructure bill would be
because we have such an aging system of pipelines out there.
We are going to have to make replacements. We are going to
have to make repairs. We are going to have to do all these
things to make sure that we can continue to transport the
energy that gets transported.
That's got to be a part of a larger infrastructure bill, I
believe, and I think that's actually something maybe we can all
agree on on a bipartisan basis here as well.
I don't want to make too many assumptions, however, about
the nature of politics in this body at the moment. But I do
think we can agree on that.
Our Nation's pipeline system does help deliver reliable and
low-cost energy to consumers across the country. Ensuring that
our pipelines operate safely, reliably, and efficiently is
absolutely critical. I think that's a no-brainer.
We must also ensure that we are taking proactive measures
to protect our pipelines from both physical and cyber threats--
that's been mentioned, cyber threats--that would put our
Nation's energy supply at great risk--those threats out there.
We know that cyber attacks are a near constant and
increasingly dangerous threat to our energy infrastructure as
well as to the surrounding communities. Federal pipeline safety
regulations must keep pace with the capabilities of those who
seek to attack our energy supply and undermine our national
security, and to that end I am happy I've been working with
Ranking Member Upton on the piece of legislation that would
improve the coordination and information sharing among the
Federal entities tasked with overseeing the cybersecurity of
our Nation's pipeline system, the Pipeline and LNG Facilities
Cybersecurity Preparedness Act.
I look forward to continuing to work on this important
issue as this committee moves forward on comprehensive pipeline
safety legislation.
Concerning the legislation that's before us today, the
Safer Pipelines Act does include a provision that I think is
critically important in ensuring our communities are better
protected from the potential impacts of a pipeline incident.
This provision would require that the owners or operators
of a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline engage and share
information, and it's been mentioned with local emergency
planning committees and other local first responders.
This will ensure that those individuals who are first to
the scene in the event of an accident are able to respond as
effectively as possible to protect the surrounding community.
Those first responders, we all know, are absolutely
critical. We've had a lot of floods in Iowa over the past 10
years since I've been in office--10 or 12 years. This kind of
an incident would be absolutely--it would be absolutely
essential for those first responders to have as much
information as possible as well.
And I know we talked about this already a little bit, Mr.
Lesniak. In your testimony you highlighted this effort to
engage with the emergency planning committees and first
responders and improve communication and education efforts
within the communities.
Can you elaborate again, if you would, on how you think
information sharing with State and local emergency responders
can help ensure the safety of our communities and improve
outcomes in the event of an incident?
Just elaborate on what you have already been talking about
earlier, if you would.
Mr. Lesniak. Thank you.
You know, local emergency responders have a hard time
getting information about pipelines and, as I said, it's a
voluntary process. Some operators are really good about it.
Some operators are not very good about it.
But it's the local emergency responders that have to be
able to act quickly to protect their communities.
And so anything that Congress can do to make sure that
critical information is shared with local LEPCs, local fire
departments, and other first responders I think is critical.
Mr. Loebsack. So in terms of what these local communities
can do themselves to take steps to protect themselves from the
impacts of an incident, do you have any specific ideas about
that?
Mr. Lesniak. I do. I worked with--personally worked with a
local pipeline operator to develop an emergency spill response
plan for Austin, Texas to protect Barton Springs, one of our
critical natural resources there, and they worked well with us
and that process worked really well.
Other communities could do that. Other pipeline operators
that we reached out to in our community weren't interested in
working with us.
And I just might say--you know, I am near the end here--I
do worry about not just cybersecurity attacks but I worry about
physical attacks and I go on the mapping website that you
mentioned earlier. There's a lot of information that the public
does need.
But that information is available to the bad guys, too, and
we have to be thinking about how to balance, you know, those
kinds of interests that we have as a public but also making
sure that we secure these pipelines from the bad guys who want
to do terrible damage to us and can inflict terroristic kinds
of actions on us and we have to be careful on that front.
So thank you very much. I appreciate the time, and I yield
back. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. Mr. Griffith is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Picking up on that, talking about bad guys physically
attacking the pipeline, that's a concern of mine too and I
visited with some folks, and I know there's other folks doing
this too, but Corning has a product where they can actually put
a fiber down on the pipeline as it's being laid and you can see
if somebody walks up to it, drives up to the pipeline, starts
digging--I mean, any of those things that would tip you off
that one of the bad guys might be out there.
Also has the advantage of because the temperature being
colder with the gas in the pipeline than the soil around it
that if there is a leak it picks up that temperature changing
and identify a leak fairly quickly.
So along those lines, I know that that's out there and I
know there's probably some other technologies as well that are
emerging.
I am just wondering what you all think the Federal
Government might be able to do to encourage more new
technologies like this and then, of course, I know it's not
your bailiwick. But then we got to convince FERC that it
probably ought to be there.
Yes, ma'am?
Ms. Sames. And I apologize. I am a little passionate about
technology. I helped revamp the PHMSA R&D program. I then went
from there to a research consortium.
So, for me, it's additional funding for technology. We have
it within PHMSA. We have a little bit within Department of
Energy. But more technology funding to get us the products that
we need. The industry is contributing a good bit also.
We've already mentioned piloting these technologies so we
can get them into the market faster. All of that will help move
things forward.
Mr. Griffith. And talking about the proposed--I know the
administration has proposed a technology pilot program. You
know, how do you think that would work? Obviously, you're
favorable, but how do you think their program would work in
moving some of this technology forward?
Ms. Sames. I would hope that it moves things faster--that
if they have an official program that Congress has approved
that it allows them to move faster, because right now they're
doing it but it's at a pretty slow pace.
Mr. Griffith. And I certainly would support putting more
funding towards the research. I am big on research and I think
it's important, and I do think the question that Mr. Pallone
asked earlier of Mr. Lesniak was that is some of the concerns
about pipelines causing some of the resistance to new
pipelines.
I think the answer to that is, clearly, yes. There's a
pipeline going through my district, and some folks are going to
be against it no matter what and there are other reasons to be
against it.
But some folks are just worried because of some of the
safety issues that they've heard about, and the more we can do
to reassure them I think the better of we are.
Mr. Black, do you want to make a quick comment on this?
Mr. Black. Yes. The technology you described is interesting
and I think it needs to be reviewed regularly by the advisory
committee groups.
Mr. Lesniak is on one of them. Pipeline operators are.
Congress told PHMSA that it needs to put its regulations and
its cost-benefit and risk assessments before the advisory
committees.
I think Congress could also tell them to review research
and development. Have PHMSA put forward its proposals and hear
from other organizations that collaboration right now occurs
but it's not frequent enough. If you all put that in the
statute that should increase it.
Mr. Griffith. All right. I appreciate that.
Now, I am going to go to an area that hasn't been touched
on yet and just ask if anybody has any ideas. I met with, I
don't know, a few months back some folks at Virginia Tech, and
they are doing research related to water and sewer pipes.
And one of the things that they found was is that the age
of the pipe was not dispositive nor the material--that one of
the things that was interesting was the type of soil and what
environment the pipe was in.
So I noticed in the bill there are several mentions of the
age of the pipe and what material it is and the cast iron
pipes. But at least for water and sewer, they talked about if
it was in the right type of soil cast iron might last 100
years.
In a different type of soil it may not make it to 50 years,
and you want to make sure you know what kind of soil you're in
and whether or not, interestingly enough, apparently
degradation in and around railroads was higher, and I thought
that was fascinating.
Is there any research going on in this regard with gas
pipelines as well to make sure that we're--I mean, we can go
out there and say you check them every 50 years and that's
great.
But if you have got a pipe that's in a soil type or in an
environment where it would last a hundred why would we spend
money on that and let's focus on the areas where it's most
important.
Ms. Sames. Yes. I mean, on the gas distribution side, we
are doing a lot on replacement and so you're looking at a
number of factors and the environment is one of those factors.
So and the pipe tells you a good bit.
So if you're going out doing leak surveys which we are
required to do and checking very particular areas and doing
more, especially for cast iron and bare steel, when
temperatures change and that frost level in certain areas of
the country--I know that down south you don't have it but we do
up north--that frost level changes, the soil moves.
So that causes extra strain on the pipe. It's all things
that have to be taken into account and it's--we've done a lot
of research in this area.
Mr. Griffith. Well, and I would hope that any bill that we
would pass would take into account some of the new technology
and take into account the fact that not every pipe is the same
as the pipe in the same--in a different soil type or different
area.
Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Kennedy for 5
minutes.
Mr. Kennedy. I thank the chairman for having this important
hearing to address pipeline safety and thank you to our
witnesses for being here.
We all recall the devastating events that happened last
year when a distribution line exploded on September 13th,
wreaking havoc in three communities in the Merrimack Valley of
Massachusetts.
Local residents and first responders were gravely injured,
homes destroyed, families displaced for months on end. And a
young man named Leonel Rondon lost his life.
Ten months later, these communities are still recovering
from the devastation. I am grateful to my colleague,
Representative Lori Trahan, for introducing H.R. 2139, the
Leonel Rondon Pipeline Safety Act to address the issues leading
to this tragic event. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this
legislation. I would also like to thank Senator Markey for
introducing the Senate version.
Now, Mr. Lesniak, in your testimony you speak to the
importance of pipeline companies developing and implementing a
continuous improvement to the safety and management system, or
SMS.
You know that the Merrimack Valley tragedy eliminated the
fact that voluntary systems of SMS weren't Incentivizing all
companies.
So, sir, I appreciate the idea of an annual fine on the
PHMSA as a level of accountability without making SMS
mandatory. Those who fully embrace SMS should have no problem.
But do you believe that will be enough of an incentive for
those that are lagging behind?
Mr. Lesniak. Thank you.
You know, there ought to be a regulatory floor and for
critical safety processes. And so I think those types of safety
processes should be required and not voluntary.
Good operators implement them. Bad operators don't.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you, sir.
As you are well aware, there's a $2 million cap on PHMSA's
penalty authority for civil penalties. Do you believe that the
fines currently assessed provide sufficient deterrent for
companies that commit a violation?
Mr. Lesniak. No, I don't. If you look at it, some of these
pipelines--for example, there's a pipeline that's being
proposed in the State of Texas right now. It's a $2 billion
project. It's going to transport millions of cubic feet of
natural gas per day. A million-dollar or $2 million fine is a
drop in the bucket for companies like that.
Mr. Kennedy. And, sir, I've heard said by some skeptics
that you, quote, ``can't create a culture of safety.'' But it
seems to me that Congress has, in fact, forced change where
industry has failed to take adequate safety steps.
Do you have any response to those who think that this is a
fool's errand?
Mr. Lesniak. I think that you can't regulate necessarily a
culture of safety. But, again, you can set a floor that makes
sure that every company meets minimum safety standards and
that--and make it more ubiquitous across the industry.
Mr. Kennedy. And a final question for you, sir. Across the
country and particularly at the State level we are seeing
concerning efforts to curb the rights of Americans, including,
particularly, Native communities to raise their voices in
defense of pipeline safety.
Often those communities stand to be the most impacted by
proposed projects such as the Dakota Access projects across
drinking water and burial grounds for the Standing Rock Sioux.
The administration's proposal to reauthorize PHMSA goes
even further than current law in proposing to criminalize
rightful peaceful protests in the name of pipeline safety.
I would imagine we can all agree that an effort to sabotage
or physically damage a pipeline is one thing--gun or explosives
or, again, some other way to damage the integrity of the actual
infrastructure--but a very different exercise to use one's free
speech rights to peacefully protest a proposed construction
project under construction.
So, Mr. Lesniak, how can we ensure that balance between
First Amendment community voices and meaningful dissent are
protected in our pipeline safety efforts and how can we better
account for Tribal indigenous rights?
Mr. Lesniak. I think the Pipeline Safety Trust has spoken
clearly about if anyone takes action to damage or disrupt the
operation of a pipeline that's wrong and it's not safe and it
threatens the public safety and threatens the environment, and
that ought to be addressed.
However, legitimate dissent and protests by the public
should be clearly protected. In the State of Texas, the State
legislature recently has criminalized legitimate dissent and
it's wrong and that should not happen.
But as long as we are protecting the pipelines and those
operations that's what we should do if it creates a public
safety threat. Otherwise, Congress should stay out of it.
Mr. Kennedy. All right. Any additional comments from
anybody else?
Mr. Black?
Mr. Black. AOPL would like to deter attacks on pipelines
that could harm the environment or the public or the assailants
themselves.
We are not trying to deter peaceful nonviolent protests.
Mr. Kennedy. Appreciate that.
I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Rush. The Chair recognizes Mr. Kinzinger for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kinzinger. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank
you all for being here today. We appreciate it.
I would like to start with cybersecurity, and some of the
questions I am going to ask--I know we've already touched on
these topics, but I do have different questions on them.
I don't believe we can separate pipeline safety from
pipeline security. Multiple Federal agencies have a role to
play when it comes to pipeline cybersecurity.
Given that the DOE is already the lead sector-specific
agency for energy and given the fact that they already have
tremendous experience and resources dedicated to pipeline
cybersecurity, especially through the National Labs, I think we
need to address this in the pipeline safety bill.
So for Mr. Black, Ms. Sames, and Mr. Osman, each of you
have supported H.R. 370, the Pipeline and LNG Facility
Cybersecurity Preparedness Act.
Would any of you have any objection to including it in the
Pipeline Safety Reauthorization and specifically if you do,
why? We'll start with you.
Ms. Sames. We are supportive of the coordination role,
which is in that bill. So I think there is--I would have to
see--I am an engineer.
Mr. Kinzinger. I understand.
Ms. Sames. That means I need the details.
Mr. Kinzinger. Yes.
Ms. Sames. But, in theory, yes, we could probably support.
Mr. Kinzinger. I am a politician. We need details, too,
before we commit to anything.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kinzinger. Because it always come back to get us.
Mr. Black. The public-private collaboration in
cybersecurity has been good and, as you say, multiple agencies
should have roles.
We were proud to support the bill through the committee
process. We encourage on cyber a holistic approach so that you
don't have duplication of government agencies, conflicting
guidance to all of us.
So we think that means involving intelligence committees,
transportation committees. I would discourage you from linking
the two on legislation. We want reauthorization legislation to
pass.
I think if you do both of them together, it slows
reauthorization. That's your prerogative.
But if you're trying to achieve both, I would recommend you
do them separately.
Mr. Kinzinger. OK.
Ms. Sames. And I agree with Mr. Black on that.
Mr. Kinzinger. All right.
Mr. Osman. I agree with my colleagues. You know, we
advocate for a comprehensive, governmentwide approach to
pipeline cybersecurity, collaboration and coordination between
the different agencies that have different important roles.
I am sure Mr. Black's concerned that, you know, bringing it
into the reauthorization bill could slow down a timely
reauthorization. But other than that, it's certainly your
prerogative.
Mr. Kinzinger. Understood.
In December of 2012--in the December 2018 report GAO
significantly raised concerns about TSA's pipeline security
program. I am concerned that the TSA is not prioritizing
pipeline security as they should.
For example, it's already been mentioned that they have
over 50,000 employees but only six were assigned to pipeline
security as of last year.
Mr. Osman, are you concerned about TSA staffing issues and
have you made any recommendations to improve that situation?
Mr. Osman. Thank you for the question. Oh, I am on.
Thank you for the question. Certainly it's important that
TSA is the lead safety regulator, has the resources that they
need.
Our association, INGAA, along with the other associations
represented at the table, have made appropriations
recommendations do increase the funding that TSA has to
increase the resources that they can bring to the table.
We have seen over the last year, certainly due to the
pressure from this committee and others, a concerted effort at
TSA to adopt the recommendations that the GAO gave them to
improve their performance.
They've rolled out a new pipeline cybersecurity assessment
initiative, which we are participating in actively and it's
helped a lot.
Mr. Kinzinger. OK. Great.
And are you concerned--well, I will say this. TSA conducts
interviews with operators, known as the corporate security
reviews. But TSA doesn't track the information or use it to
measure risk.
Are you concerned about the way these corporate security
reviews are being conducted or and do you have any
recommendations on that level either?
Mr. Osman. As I mentioned, that program has evolved to this
newer pipeline cybersecurity initiative. We know that they're
implementing their recommendations to the GAO, which included
some of the tracking and data collection that you're talking
about. So we'll need to keep watching that and see how it----
Mr. Kinzinger. But you feel like we are on a comfortable
track with that? A good start at it?
Mr. Osman. Yes. A good start.
Mr. Kinzinger. OK.
Mr. Osman. That's the way we'd put it.
Mr. Kinzinger. Hopefully, a good ending, too.
Mr. Black, are attacks on pipelines an ongoing problem and
how are the attacks on pipeline facilities a threat to safety
and public--of the public and the environment?
I am sure you have answered this in numerous ways but----
Mr. Black. In 2016, there was a coordinated series of
attacks where people broke chains, opened perimeter fencing,
and tried to turn valves on pipelines, covering about 15
percent of our daily crude oil use.
Thankfully, they did not result in a rupture but they could
have by improperly forcing closed a valve. 2017 there was an
attack. 2019 there was an attack.
There was an attack on a pipeline just before it started in
operation. If it had started operation without that damage
being addressed, it would have caused a problem. We believe
there are loopholes in Federal law on operating--on
construction and on actions that don't damage or destroy but
that could that need to be closed by Congress so that we deter
these attacks.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, and as a guy that lives on top of
a bunch of pipelines and near them, they're really important.
But this is a very important issue as well. So I thank you and
I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Veasey for 5
minutes.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing to talk about pipeline safety. I think that all of us
can agree that we do not want to lose another life and that we
do not want to incur any further damage because these pipeline
explosions can be absolutely devastating, including death.
And I would also like to thank Chairman Pallone and
Congresswoman Lori Trahan for their efforts to prevent deadly
pipeline explosions like the one that happened in the district
that I represent in Dallas, where we lost 12-year-old Linda
``Michellita'' Rogers last year in the city of Dallas. We have
to do everything that we can to, obviously, prevent us having
another incident like that. I don't know if that's something
that all of you sitting at the table would agree with.
One powerful tool we have as lawmakers is the imposition of
civil penalties to make sure that people are doing everything
they can to prevent another incident like what happened in
Massachusetts, like what happened in Dallas, from ever
occurring again, to make sure that people aren't putting
profits ahead of people. I think that everyone would also agree
that you don't want to put profits ahead of people.
In the State legislature in Texas this year, my former
colleague, State Representative Rafael Anchia from Dallas, he
was able to get a pipeline safety bill passed but as a
companion piece on the Federal end.
Representative Trahan's Pipeline Safety Act bill would
increase penalties for companies that violate the law up to
$200 million for the most egregious violations.
And I wanted to ask Mr. Lesniak while the civil penalties
alone cannot prevent tragedies like the ones I just mentioned
from happening again, in your opinion how would the increases
in penalties included in the Congresswoman Trahan's bill impact
the decisions that are made by these pipeline operators?
Mr. Lesniak. I think anytime that we make substantive
substantial penalties for bad actors it's a good thing. They
will be more likely to take it account.
You know, I work with pipeline operators all the time in my
role on the technical advisory committee and working with the
Pipeline Safety Trust in PHMSA and those companies that engage
in those processes on a regular basis those are generally the
good operators.
We write regulations and create penalties for the bad
actors and you need to make it so that they think twice before
they don't do things that they know they ought to be doing.
Mr. Veasey. Pipeline industry associations develop
operating best practices based on the recommendation of their
engineers and experts. Where appropriate where do you think
PHMSA can take advantage of these best practices that improve
pipeline safety?
Anyone can answer that.
Mr. Osman. Thank you for the question. What's important is
that PHMSA continues to embrace the latest technologies and
engineering practices that those--that those consensus
technical standards represent.
In PHMSA's bill, they draft legislation. They have proposed
some language along those lines to require the agency to
continue to be focused on ensuring the latest engineering
technical standards and incorporated into its regulations, and
that's important because we have a lot of standards in there
right now that are many decades old, for example, the
fundamental gas transmission pipeline standards, ASME--American
Society of Mechanical Engineers--B31.8S.
The version that's incorporated in the regulations today
was written in 2004. There's been five versions published since
then, each one better than the last.
So, you know, this is an opportunity to by simply changing
some references, doing a quick review of the new documents to
demonstrably improve pipeline safety with relatively little
effort.
Mr. Veasey. I know that on the first--at a pipeline safety
oversight hearing that there was concern about rule making
taking too long to complete. What do you think that we can do
to help speed that up and help make that situation better?
Mr. Osman. Thank you for the question. Now, part of it, as
my colleague, Mr. Black, mentioned earlier, is doing what you
all are doing to encourage PHMSA about what the priorities
really are to get those mandates done.
We do think that PHMSA made a mistake in years past by
trying to lump just too many different unrelated initiatives
together and that slowed down every step in the process from A
to Z.
I think also opportunities to look at resource levels in
PHMSA with provisions like the subcommittee's draft direct hire
proposal could go a long way to help as well.
Mr. Black. With your interest in best practices of
mechanical engineers and other technical experts, you have got
an opportunity. We've discussed here about best practices that
have been updated.
But those updates have not been incorporated in the Federal
regulations. Those updates require all operators to comply. So
you have got the opportunity and the administration's
recommendation to require PHMSA to regularly review updates and
to decide to incorporate.
That's Congress setting a priority for PHMSA of harnessing
new technology. Just as Mr. Osman said for natural gas, the
same is true on liquids.
We've got a recommended practice 1160 on integrity
management inspection and maintenance. Let's get those updates
rolled into regulations.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yield back the balance.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Johnson for 5
minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks for
conducting this hearing today. Really important topic, and I
hope that as we move forward our Energy and Commerce majority
will seek to make this historically bipartisan process just
that--bipartisan.
We should not be playing politics with pipeline safety but
instead, we should be working on a bill that has received
proper and necessary technical feedback from PHMSA and all
members of this committee.
We all want to produce a bill that can help address the
current challenges and opportunities of our pipeline system. We
all want a bill that promotes safety, allows for technological
innovation and correctly addresses emerging physical and cyber
threats.
That's the bill we should all be working on and I hope we
can eventually work together on those issues.
Ms. Sames, we obviously need to do everything we can to
minimize events within our pipeline infrastructure. I think
everyone shares that goal.
Everyone would also agree that it is incumbent on this
committee and industry to ensure that we are doing everything
we can to correctly respond to those incidents when they,
unfortunately, occur.
So when pipeline incidents do occur, how do gas utilities
communicate with first responders and how can we here in
Congress help improve that communication?
Ms. Sames. Because our companies--the distribution
companies are in the communities that they serve it's a much
closer relationship. We are doing immediate outreach.
We are doing outreach in advance to make sure that the
emergency responders in that area know where the pipelines are
and what's in those particular lines--the distribution lines.
Because we have so many excavation damages--individuals
hitting our lines because they're not either calling before
they dig or they're not abiding the lines--we have a lot of
opportunities to do emergency response on the distribution
side.
So they know us. They know us well. They're coordinating
with us. We do incident command structure similar to the fire
departments so that when we are on the scene they know that
their job is to keep things safe until we get there. Our job is
to make sure that the pipeline stays safe.
So it's a nice tag team between the two. On the information
that they need, it's that close coordination in advance and
good coordination and communication once on site.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Can you talk briefly about the importance
of allowing operators to make--to successfully perform an
initial assessment after an incident? I mean, what arises if
someone makes a wrong assessment?
So tell me--tell me what you think about operators doing
the initial assessment.
Ms. Sames. So what could happen if somebody makes a wrong
assessment and one of our concerns has always been some
emergency responders are very gung ho. They see a fire. They
want to make sure that things are taken care of and we try our
best to make sure that they're not turning valves because as
was heard earlier, you turn the wrong the valve and many bad
things can happen.
So on the assessment after an incident, after we get onsite
it's what occurred, how did it occur, who was involved. We are
trying to gather as much information as possible so that we can
make the right decisions.
Mr. Johnson. And no one better than the operators are
poised to do that assessment. Wouldn't you agree?
Ms. Sames. We are the technical experts.
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Ms. Sames. So we should know our lines. We should be
familiar with our lines. We should know everything about them.
Mr. Johnson. OK. All right.
Mr. Black, a bipartisan concern expressed at the May 1st
pipeline safety oversight hearing was PHMSA taking too long to
complete their mandated rulemakings.
What can we do to help that situation?
Mr. Black. First, to encourage PHMSA to not lump too many
complex issues into large rulemakings that overwhelm the
process.
Second, help them gain information. We've got a
recommendation from AOPL that the administration made to follow
something with some of the motor carrier statute that allows a
pilot program. PHMSA, at its discretion, can choose certain
operators to test new technologies and approaches that I
believe should have an equivalent level of safety. Then they
can gather information from that.
Mr. Johnson. Some have expressed concerns that the
requirement for PHMSA to do a cost-benefit analysis of their
rule is partially to blame. Do you--do you see that?
Mr. Black. No, sir. Not at all. It's going to be required
ultimately because of executive order. It should be done early.
It should be done and vetted with a stakeholder group as it is
today with the advisory committees.
Mr. Johnson. OK. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Arizona, Mr. O'Halleran, for 5 minutes.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Upton, and our witnesses here today to discuss the legislative
proposals before us to reauthorize the national pipeline and
safety framework.
While I know there are various perspectives being
represented on our witnesses' panel today, I would like to echo
the chairman's remarks and that this is simply the continuation
of our conversation on pipeline safety and this bill will
evolve from where it is today.
I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle on a bipartisan framework which truly provides
public safety and oversight of our pipeline infrastructure.
Ms. Sames, you mentioned during part of the discussion on
pipeline safety--you used the word proper resources. Do we have
the proper resources?
Is there the proper funding out there in the field from
both the Federal Government, the State government, and others
that--in the industry to be able to address the safety issues
for our citizens?
Ms. Sames. I think PHMSA could use some additional funding.
I also think that they've done a really good job revamping
their training program for both Federal and State regulators.
I think it can--I think additional funding there can also
help. I've heard concerns that it can take a little while for
the inspectors to get through that training.
So additional resources would help with that training
portion. Also, research--you have already heard me say I think
they need additional money for research and development so that
they can implement pilots, move technology forward, implement
pilots, and get the technology out in the field faster than it
is currently.
On the State side, the States need more funding. They need
the ability to pay their inspectors more. They need the proper
training. So I am a fan of both.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you.
Mr. Lesniak, I think it was you that mentioned bad actors.
How do you define bad actors and what is the industry doing
within itself to identify who these are and to address those
issues?
Mr. Lesniak. You know, over the last 20 years that I've
been involved in pipeline issues, you know, I've dealt with
operators that are really good. They're very proactive.
They go well above and beyond the minimum standards in the
regulations and I've also dealt with pipeline operators that do
the bare minimum and sometimes not even that, and that's how I
would define a bad actor is an operators that's just doing the
bare minimum or less.
Mr. O'Halleran. And what is the industry, to your
knowledge, doing to address that and call out those bad actors?
Mr. Lesniak. You know, I think my colleagues here on the
panel, you know, their industry is doing training. They're
doing outreach. But, you know, I suspect that they would tell
you that you can lead a horse to water but you can't always
make them drink.
Mr. O'Halleran. Well, I will go down that road another
time.
[Laughter.]
Mr. O'Halleran. Mr. Osman, I just wanted to point out that
you also mentioned the concern with some of the financial
issues as it relates to getting regulatory issues taken care
of, and I just wanted to identify the overall issues out here.
Mr. Black, in PHMSA's recent legislative proposal to
Congress for the reauthorization of the Pipeline Safety Act it
includes the authority for PHMSA to evaluate and implement a
safety incentives program for operators who voluntarily exceed
minimum Federal standards for pipeline safety.
It also proposes a pipeline safety technology program to
test the latest technologies in controlled real-world settings.
Do you believe these proposals deserve more consideration
as we move beyond today's proposed discussion drafts? Why or
why not?
Mr. Black. Thank you, Congressman. The second one you
mentioned, the pilot program, we particularly encourage. We
think it's going to lead to quicker rule makings and better use
of technology.
We suggest two additions to what the administration
suggested: one, reporting to Congress and the public about the
lessons from them; two, a requirement that they roll those
positive lessons into future regulations.
The first one that you mentioned is interesting on--in
safety incentives. It may be more gas focused. I would be
interested to learn more about that. And on your question about
resources, the problems that we have heard is PHMSA's
difficulty through the Federal hiring process and the salaries
that it can pay to hire quality inspectors and then to retain
them when they have lucrative options, including in the private
sector.
So we recommended Schedule A hiring authority, if that
helps. The direct hire authority from the subcommittee's
discussion draft, that could be the way to go. We've supported
that as well.
We want PHMSA to be able to attract and retain quality
inspectors.
Mr. O'Halleran. Well, given the time, I have some more
questions. I will put those in writing. But I just--my
background in law enforcement tells me that you have to have
consistency.
You have to have enough personnel to identify the issues
and to address them in a timely manner and you have to be
proactive about these issues.
And it is apparent, now that all four of you have
identified funding as a crucial issue and retention now also,
that we need to find a way to address those issues.
And I yield.
Mr. Tonko [presiding]. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Flores for 5
minutes.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Chairman, and Leader Upton, I
appreciate you all holding today's hearing. I share many of the
concerns that have been expressed on this side of the aisle
today at the dais regarding the--this discussion draft and the
process by which it has come in front of us today.
In particular, I am still waiting on information from the
May hearing with PHMSA, and I understand the majority has not
submitted our written request yet to the witnesses from that
hearing, and those requests included my own so I am hoping that
the majority will hurry up and get that to the witnesses.
It seems reasonable to me that before we start working on
legislation we'd at least have a complete record from the prior
hearing before we move forward in the legislative process.
I would first like to talk about pipeline vandalism. PHMSA
has proposed strengthening the existing criminal measures for
attacking a pipeline facility. We've also received a letter
that Mr. Black spoke of earlier in his opening statements in
support of this provision from some of the unions that are
involved in the construction operation of pipelines.
And, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for unanimous
consent that this support letter from these four unions be
entered into the record.
Mr. Tonko. Without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I support this proposal from PHMSA, especially in light of
several high profile attacks on pipelines involving so-called
valve turners.
These dangerous stunts not only endanger lives; they damage
property. They damage the environment and can have significant
economic consequences.
To all our witnesses, do you agree that this activity is
dangerous?
Ms. Sames?
Ms. Sames. Yes.
Mr. Flores. OK. Mr. Lesniak?
Mr. Lesniak. Yes.
Mr. Flores. OK. Mr. Black?
Mr. Black. Yes.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Osman?
Mr. Osman. Absolutely.
Mr. Flores. Would each of you support strengthening
criminal standards to discourage people from damaging pipeline
facilities?
Ms. Sames?
Ms. Sames. Yes.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Lesniak?
Mr. Lesniak. We'd need to look at the proposal.
Mr. Flores. OK. Mr. Black?
Mr. Black. Yes.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Osman?
Mr. Osman. Yes.
Mr. Flores. OK. Great. Thanks.
Mr. Black, Ms. Sames and Mr. Osman, pipelines are among--we
all know this--pipelines are among the safest and most
efficient way to deliver natural gas and petroleum products to
the consumer.
What are some of the significant trends across the industry
to improve pipeline safety? If you can spend about 20 seconds
each on what some of the significant trends are to improve
safety today?
Ms. Sames. When I look at the distribution incidents, the
ones that cause death and injury, the leading two causes are
excavation damage and vehicles hitting above-ground pipelines.
Those are the top two. So there's a lot of effort to
promote 811--Call Before You Dig. It's a free service. We need
more people calling before they dig.
On individuals hitting our lines with vehicles, we are
trying to figure out how do you stop people from going through
a field and hitting a pipeline. I am still struggling with that
one.
Mr. Flores. No, I understand.
Mr. Black?
Mr. Black. So we are the safest method of transporting
fuels but we are not at the goal of zero incidents that we want
to be. Those trends are reviewed every year in our strategic
plan.
Currently, we are very excited about two things: one,
increased technology through in-line inspection devices, and
two, improve safety culture through industry wide
implementation of safety management systems.
Mr. Flores. Mr. Osman?
Mr. Osman. In the early 2000s, Congress directed PHMSA to
implement an integrity management program. Since that time,
we've seen great improvement in the areas that that program was
designed to address--threats like corrosion, threats like
cracking on pipelines--and PHMSA is very close to completing
the rulemaking to expand that to a much wider degree of
pipelines and also to implement newer technologies. So we are
excited to see that happen.
Mr. Flores. In the last minute that I have left, Ms. Sames,
as you know, 43 States and the District of Columbia have
pipeline replacement programs as part of their statutes.
In Texas, we have a risk-based program that requires
operators to survey their pipelines for the greatest potential
threats for failure and to make replacements.
Our pipeline company is required to develop a prioritized
schedule for replacement and in some ways our Texas regulations
are more--Texas regulations are more stringent than PHMSA's.
Generally speaking, how are these pipeline replacement
programs funded and what are some of the constraints to further
accelerate the replacement of aging pipelines?
Ms. Sames. So each operator is working closely with our
State commission on replacement programs. They're proposing
here's what we want to replace.
Here's the time line for replacement. It's all risk-based.
So that--and try to be done in a way at the least cost to the
customers.
On faster, that's a bit of a challenge because you need
qualified individuals in order to do the work. You do it too
fast, you get--I don't want that. So there's a good balance.
There needs to be a balance between how quickly you replace
with a qualified workforce so you have your quality.
And going back to your last question, I apologize; none of
us mentioned that the other thing that we are doing to advance
is sharing of information. We do it through conferences,
workshops, technical papers. So something else.
Mr. Flores. Best practices you're talking about?
Ms. Sames. That is correct.
Mr. Flores. OK. Thank you for--all the witnesses for being
here today and I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Tonko. The gentleman yields back.
The Chair recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
My understanding is that the 2011 Pipeline Safety bill
included a number of required rule makings for PHMSA, many of
which are not completed 8 years later, and I know that
Representative McNerney had asked the panel about the reasons
for those delays.
But, Mr. Lesniak, I want to come back to you and ask you to
more fully develop, if you would, PHMSA's cost-benefit
requirements. Are they a hindrance to getting required rule
makings completed in a timely manner and can you give us some
more information in that regard?
Mr. Lesniak. You know, as I said before, the Pipeline
Safety Trust does think that that is one of the significant
hindrances. There are other issues as well.
But it's a duplicative process and unreasonably slows the
process, and I think if that part of it was eliminated it would
help move things along.
Mr. Tonko. And what areas of duplication are the most
concerned?
Mr. Lesniak. There's an OMB--there's a similar cost-benefit
analysis that's required by the OMB, and so why are we doing it
two times. You know, we are not clear on that.
Mr. Tonko. OK. I thank you for that.
And what about NTSB itself? What about recommendations
there? Are there still outstanding recommendations that haven't
been implemented?
Mr. Lesniak. There are. There are recommendations from NTSB
that go way back, many that are supported by the industry and
that--I think that NTSB recommendations, because they're an
independent organization from the industry--from PHMSA itself,
I think those recommendations ought to be taken seriously and
prioritized for implementation.
Mr. Tonko. And does the bill that we address here today
with these hearings help improve that in any way?
Mr. Lesniak. It does, but it could go further. There are
specific recommendations for providing information to emergency
responders that NTSB has recommended that are not included and
we think that those should be included.
Mr. Tonko. OK, and is leak detection technology an
effective method to protect communities?
Mr. Lesniak. It is, and it ought to be required with a
standard for the effectiveness of that leak detection
technology.
Mr. Tonko. And so stronger requirements----
Mr. Lesniak. Yes.
Mr. Tonko [continuing]. For that detection system would be
an improvement for----
Mr. Lesniak. Yes.
Mr. Tonko. Do any of our other witnesses have
recommendations on NTSB's recommendations?
Yes, Mr. Osman.
Mr. Osman. Thank you for the question.
We agree. NTSB recommendations are important and should be
given great consideration by PHMSA, by the industry, by all of
us. As we've said a few times, the pending rule makings that we
believe PHMSA will complete this year will close out many
outstanding NTSB recommendations and we think that's critical.
Mr. Tonko. Mr. Black, you had some comments you wanted to
share?
Mr. Black. The primary discussion we are having with the
NTSB right now is they're encouraging operators of all
different pipeline segments to implement safety management
systems.
We are doing a lot of workshops. We are encouraging
pipeline operators to do that. The NTSB said the response by
the industry exceeded expectations and we are learning from
them.
Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you very much.
And Ms. Sames?
Ms. Sames. Yes, and the only thing that I would add is with
the NTSB recommendations there--we are typically looking at
what's the intent behind that particular recommendation.
There are some recommendations that may not be practical in
the real world and those--in the conversations with them
they'll say, you know, we are looking further out; where could
technology be in 10 years, 15 years, 20 years. Whereas the
industry is looking at what can we do right now to meet the
intent of what you want.
So I am always looking at how can I meet what you will want
but maybe in a more practical way.
Mr. Tonko. OK. Is there an example that you could share?
Ms. Sames. Sure. For example, the NTSB had a recommendation
to make all pipelines piggable and when I looked at it I said,
well, there's two options.
You can either dig up a lot of pipelines and replace them
or you can create a new technology that will get through all
the pipelines, because right now not all pipelines are
piggable.
You cannot run an inline inspection in all pipelines
because it's not--because of lack of pressure, because of
turns, because of valves. There's a lot of different criteria
that don't make a certain pipeline piggable. But if we advance
technology we can get there.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes Mr.--Representative Walberg for 5
minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And today's hearing
is very important. I think we all agree with that, and while I
share some of the concerns of my colleagues about process and
policy in the--in the discussion draft, I am hopeful that we
can find bipartisan consensus as we move forward and we thank
the panel for being here to help us in that process.
Mr. Osman, in your testimony you emphasize the importance
of direct assessment. It seems like we should be adding tools
to PHMSA's toolbox, not taking them away.
Can you describe what they are, these tools, and when they
are most appropriate for use?
Mr. Osman. Sure. Thank you.
Direct assessment is an important safety technology in our
toolbox. It involves looking for the precursors that might
predict potential corrosion on a pipeline and going out and
making excavations and actually looking at the pipe to
understand if it's actually occurring.
It's a tool that we use when other types of assessment
methods are not possible or not available. My colleague, Ms.
Sames, just mentioned certain pipelines that can't accommodate
internal inspection devices. That's one example of when we
might use that technology and, you know, there's just always
going to be certain areas of the pipe they can't use those
internal inspection devices.
Also, sometimes there's a pipeline that cannot be shut down
without having significant impacts to the folks who rely on
that natural gas. So you wouldn't want to use an assessment
method like hydrostatic pressure testing that requires a
pipeline shutdown. It's another example of a good opportunity
to use a direct assessment.
Mr. Walberg. Mr. Black, how does direct assessment compare
to other assessment methods in terms of preventing future
pipeline integrity issues as opposed to finding existing
problems?
Mr. Black. Well, for liquids it's also an important tool in
areas that cannot be pigged. Example is facility piping where
you still want to do that type of inspection but you can't get
an inline inspection device there.
So we would not support a provision to eliminate that
important tool. It wouldn't help safety.
Mr. Walberg. OK.
Ms. Sames, are there situations where direct assessment of
pipelines is more appropriate than other methods when
conducting pipeline integrity assessments?
Ms. Sames. Direct assessment is a predictive model. It's
predicting where corrosion should be and where you have the
potential for corrosion to occur in the future, whereas for
inline inspection it's what's already occurred.
So if you're an operator that wants to predict where
corrosion could be occurring you want direct assessment because
it's helping you with those predictions and you're also digging
up the line when you're doing direct assessment to confirm what
you're finding.
Mr. Walberg. OK.
Moving on and switching gears here a little bit, Mr. Osman,
in PHMSA's draft proposal there was a placeholder for a
Voluntary Information-Sharing program.
This is something I am very interested in and would like to
get stakeholder feedback on. So do you think Congress should
authorize such a program in our pipeline safety reauthorization
this Congress?
Mr. Osman. Yes, absolutely. That would go a long way to
helping us share the information we need to prove our safety
performance.
Mr. Walberg. Mr. Black?
Mr. Black. Yes, we'd agree. We'd encourage Congress to look
at the report issued by a multistakeholder group that took
years to work on this. Not everything in the administration
proposal included what the report includes.
Mr. Walberg. OK. Ms. Sames?
Ms. Sames. Yes, and the administration bill, as Mr. Black
indicated, doesn't quite go far enough. In my opinion, for
example, it doesn't include distribution systems.
And so representing the distribution industry, we've been
pushing for that sharing of information to go throughout the
entire network.
Also, make sure the protections are there so that
individuals sharing the information know they're protected from
voluntarily providing safety concerns, safety issues.
They are findings very similar to the FAA, making sure
that's in place, and then finally, incentives. If I am an
operator and I am concerned that not all the protections are
there, I am probably going to be hesitant to share information.
So anything that can encourage the sharing of information,
even if it's as simple as PHMSA saying we are getting
information from this particular operator, that would be good.
Mr. Walberg. Other areas, Mr. Black and Mr. Osman, on this
liability protection that you would suggest?
Mr. Black. Well, we would encourage PHMSA and Congress to
encourage PHMSA to encourage voluntary self-reporting so that
pipeline operators will identify, disclose, correct.
Right now they have that discretion but they use it very
infrequently and it's not providing the incentive that it
needs. That's an option to improve safety.
Mr. Walberg. Well, my time has expired so I yield back.
Mr. Rush [presiding]. I want to thank the gentleman for
yielding back.
That concludes our panel and I want to thank each and every
one of you for joining us today and for sharing your time and
your thoughts, your insights with us, and we will continue to
work with you as we proceed in the future.
Thank you so very much.
There's a request for unanimous consent to enter into the
record the following letters and other documents from
associated entities, including a letter from the National
Society of Professional Engineers; a letter from Aclara
Technologies, LLC; a letter from the American Petroleum
Institute; a letter from the GPA Midstream Association; a
letter from the International Union of Operating Engineers,
Laborers' International Union of North America, the North
American Building Trade Unions and United Association of
Plumbers and Pipefitters; an analysis and draft proposal of the
Protecting Our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety
Act of 2019 from the Pipeline and Hazardous Material Safety
Administration; technical drafting assistance of the Safer
Pipeline Act of 2019 from the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration; and finally, a letter from the National
Association of Corrosion Engineering.
And without objection, this is so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Rush. I want to thank again the witnesses and I will
remind the Members that, pursuant to committee rules, they have
10 business days to submit additional questions for the record
to be answered by the witnesses who have appeared, and I ask
each witness to respond promptly to any such questions that you
may receive.
Seeing a consent from the witnesses, at this time the
subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:52 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]