    [House Hearing, 113 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        A REVIEW OF THE PIPELINE SAFETY,
                           REGULATORY CERTAINTY, AND
                            JOB CREATION ACT OF 2011

    =======================================================================

                                    (113-70)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                           RAILROADS, PIPELINES, AND
                              HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 20, 2014

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available online at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
            committee.action?chamber=house&committee=transportation
                                       ______

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    87-962 PDF                     WASHINGTON : 2014
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
      Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
             DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
                              Washington, DC 20402-0001

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                      BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
    DON YOUNG, Alaska                    NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
    THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin           PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina         ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee,          Columbia
      Vice Chair                         JERROLD NADLER, New York
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                CORRINE BROWN, Florida
    FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey        EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas
    GARY G. MILLER, California           ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 RICK LARSEN, Washington
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York
    DUNCAN HUNTER, California            MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
    ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas  GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania           DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania         DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland
    RICHARD L. HANNA, New York           JOHN GARAMENDI, California
    DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              ANDREE CARSON, Indiana
    STEVE SOUTHERLAND, II, Florida       JANICE HAHN, California
    JEFF DENHAM, California              RICHARD M. NOLAN, Minnesota
    REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin            ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              DINA TITUS, Nevada
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York
    TOM RICE, South Carolina             ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma           LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas                CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
    RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
    MARK SANFORD, South Carolina
    DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
                                    ------

         Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials

                       JEFF DENHAM, California, Chairman
    JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee       CORRINE BROWN, Florida
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
    GARY G. MILLER, California           JERROLD NADLER, New York
    SAM GRAVES, Missouri                 ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
    CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan          GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
    LOU BARLETTA, Pennsylvania           TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana               ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    BOB GIBBS, Ohio                      JANICE HAHN, California
    PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania         ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
    RICHARD L. HANNA, New York, Vice     ELIZABETH H. ESTY, Connecticut
        Chair                            PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon
    DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida              MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts
    THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky              NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia
    ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas                  (Ex Officio)
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
    BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania (Ex
        Officio)
    VACANCY

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................    iv

                                   TESTIMONY

    Hon. Cynthia L. Quarterman, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous
      Materials Safety Administration................................     2
    Donald F. Santa, president and chief executive officer,
      Interstate Natural Gas Association of America..................     2
    Craig O. Pierson, president, Marathon Pipe Line LLC, on behalf of
      the Association of Oil Pipe Lines..............................     2
    Ronald A. Bradley, vice president, gas operations, PECO, an
      Exelon Company, on behalf of the American Gas Association......     2
    Carl Weimer, executive director, Pipeline Safety Trust...........     2

               PREPARED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY MEMBER OF CONGRESS

    Hon. Elizabeth H. Esty, of Connecticut...........................    31

                   PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

    Hon. Cynthia L. Quarterman.......................................    32
    Donald F. Santa..................................................    50
    Craig O. Pierson.................................................    55
    Ronald A. Bradley................................................    68
    Carl Weimer......................................................    83

                           SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

    Hon. Cynthia L. Quarterman, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous
      Materials Safety Administration, response to request for
      information from Hon. Corrine Brown, a Representative in
      Congress from the State of Florida.............................    27
    Carl Weimer, executive director, Pipeline Safety Trust, responses
      to questions for the record from Hon. Corrine Brown, a
      Representative in Congress from the State of Florida...........   100

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                        A REVIEW OF THE PIPELINE SAFETY,
                           REGULATORY CERTAINTY, AND
                            JOB CREATION ACT OF 2011

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MAY 20, 2014

                      House of Representatives,
    Subcommittee on Railroads, Pipelines, and Hazardous
                                             Materials,
                Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:12 p.m., in
    Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Denham
    (Chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Denham. The subcommittee will come to order.
        Good afternoon. Welcome to the Subcommittee on Railroads,
    Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials.
        Our hearing today will focus on the implementation of the
    Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of
    2011. This act is administered by the Pipeline and Hazardous
    Materials Safety Administration, PHMSA, and it expires at the
    end of 2015.
        The United States has the largest network of energy
    pipelines of any nation in the world, and pipelines are energy
    lifelines that power nearly all of our daily activities.
    Pipelines are the safest and most cost-effective means to
    transport the extraordinary volumes of natural gas and
    hazardous liquid products that fuel our economy.
        Since 1986, the volume of energy products transported
    through pipelines has increased by one-third, yet the number of
    reportable incidents has decreased by 28 percent.
        Pipeline safety is carried out in a partnership between
    PHMSA, State regulators and the private sector. Both Government
    and industry have taken numerous steps to improve pipeline
    safety over the last 10 years.
        While the data shows that Federal pipeline safety programs
    have been on the right track, Congress enacted the 2011
    pipeline safety bill to strengthen our efforts, as stakeholders
    understood there was room for improvement.
        The law included 42 congressional mandates of PHMSA, of
    which 21 are complete, 13 are on schedule and in progress, and
    8 have been extended beyond their deadline.
        As of April 23rd, 2014, PHMSA had issued 10 advisory
    bulletins, completed 5 reports, updated 2 parts of the Code of
    Federal Regulations and issued 1 final rule. We look forward to
    hearing from our witnesses today on those mandates and PHMSA's
    progress at implementing the 2011 law.
        We believe in a risk-based, data-driven approach to
    pipeline safety that focuses private investment in pipeline
    safety on those areas of higher risk.
        As PHMSA develops rules to implement the mandates contained
    in the 2011 act, it is critically important that we must
    provide regulatory certainty necessary for pipeline owners and
    operators to plan infrastructure investments and do so with
    input from the safety community and industry.
        Doing so means maintaining a risk-based approach that
    applies cost-benefit principles to the development of rules and
    regulations. It also means doing the due diligence to ensure
    rules do not go beyond congressional intent, thereby creating
    uncertainty for the regulated community which ultimately does
    not enhance safety.
        We will hear today that industry is also being proactive in
    its own safety initiatives to ensure best practices exist for
    things like inspections, detecting leaks and safety training.
        We will indeed hear from folks on both the hazardous
    liquids and the natural gas sides of the community that
    developing a culture of safety is important to these industries
    and the communities at large. I am looking forward to hearing
    about these initiatives.
        In closing, I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
    regarding these issues concerning pipeline safety. Shortly we
    will hear from the ranking member, Corrine Brown, for 5 minutes
    for any opening statement she may have.
        Again I would like to thank our witnesses.

        TESTIMONY OF HON. CYNTHIA L. QUARTERMAN, ADMINISTRATOR,
    PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION; DONALD
      F. SANTA, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INTERSTATE
         NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; CRAIG O. PIERSON,
    PRESIDENT, MARATHON PIPE LINE LLC, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION
       OF OIL PIPE LINES; RONALD A. BRADLEY, VICE PRESIDENT, GAS
    OPERATIONS, PECO, AN EXELON COMPANY, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN
    GAS ASSOCIATION; AND CARL WEIMER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PIPELINE
                              SAFETY TRUST

        Mr. Denham. And we will proceed with the Honorable Ms.
    Quarterman this afternoon.
        Thank you for joining us.
        Ms. Quarterman. Good afternoon, Chairman Denham, Ranking
    Member Brown and members of the subcommittee.
        Thank you for your leadership on pipeline safety issues,
    and thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss
    the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's
    oversight of America's vast network of energy pipelines and the
    progress we have made in implementing the mandates of the
    Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of
    2011.
        Before I begin, I would like to acknowledge former
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim
    Oberstar and pass along my condolences to his family and his
    former colleagues. I know many of you worked with him, knew him
    and were friends with him. Former Chairman Oberstar was
    incredibly smart and dedicated to making America's
    transportation network the best and the safest in the world,
    and he will be greatly missed.
        PHMSA is a little agency with a big mission. Over 2.6
    million miles of pipeline cross our Nation. These pipelines are
    a way to transport hazardous products that are essential to our
    way of life, our mobility and our Nation's economic well-being.
        Now more than ever Americans are relying on pipelines for
    energy transportation and they are expecting the companies who
    operate those pipelines to do so safely. Safety is the top
    priority of Secretary Foxx, myself and all of the employees at
    PHMSA.
        Prior to 2010, the Nation's pipeline safety record was
    improving significantly. We implemented all but one of the
    mandates of the 2006 PIPES Act and closed almost all then-
    pending NTSB recommendations.
        In 2010 and 2011, a string of significant pipeline
    incidents brought an intense focus to pipeline safety. PHMSA
    received 42 congressional mandates through the Pipeline Safety
    Act, 27 NTSB recommendations, 16 OIG and 6 GAO recommendations
    following those incidents.
        We have taken a comprehensive approach to addressing these
    mandates and recommendations. In doing so, we are refining our
    policies and procedures, issuing advisory bulletins, reminding
    stakeholders of our expectations and their responsibilities,
    developing performance measures to drive safety, and
    strengthening our regulatory framework with the development of
    new regulations.
        As of right now, as the chairman mentioned, PHMSA has
    completed 50 percent of the statutory mandates and made
    significant progress towards the remaining mandates with the
    intent of completing them all.
        Our hard work is driving the industry to operate pipelines
    more safely, and I would like to highlight a few of our recent
    successes.
        We increased our penalty authority and for the first time
    can enforce oil spill preparedness regulations. We drafted
    proposed rules that will comprehensively update natural gas and
    hazardous liquid transmission pipeline transportation,
    including our integrity management requirements.
        Implementation of several key pipeline safety mandates and
    NTSB recommendations are contained in those rules. Also
    included is a comprehensive integrity verification process to
    satisfy multiple mandates from the Congress and recommendations
    that came from the tragic incident in San Bruno, California.
        Serious incidents, ones involving death or injury, continue
    their downward trend and reached a low of 25 in 2013. That is
    the lowest amount in 30 years. Further, fatalities were driven
    to a 5-year low and injuries reached a 7-year low in 2013.
        We have reduced the time it takes to close an enforcement
    case by 65 percent since 2009, and we issued record proposed
    fines in 2013.
        We continue to engage the States and the Department's Call
    to Action for modernizing high-risk pipeline infrastructure,
    and many of our research and development efforts are addressing
    the complex challenges posed by aging pipeline infrastructure.
        We also focused our inspection program to better utilize
    data and revise protocols to target the greatest risks for
    individual operators, whether they be compliance issues or
    integrity issues.
        Our new state-of-the-art training qualifications center
    will ensure we are providing and supporting our State and
    Federal inspectors and preparing them for successful
    inspections.
        While the Nation's infrastructure needs and the landscape
    surrounding energy products have changed dramatically since the
    Pipeline Safety Act was enacted, our focus on safety and the
    need for effective standards and recommendations remains the
    same.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today, and I
    look forward to your questions.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Ms. Quarterman.
        Don Santa, president and CEO, Interstate Natural Gas
    Association of America, you may proceed.
        Mr. Santa. Thank you, Chairman Denham.
        Good afternoon, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Brown,
    members of the subcommittee.
        My name is Donald Santa, and I am the president and CEO of
    the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, or INGAA.
    INGAA represents interstate natural gas transmission pipeline
    operators in the U.S. and Canada.
        The pipeline systems operated by INGAA's 26 member
    companies are analogous to the Interstate Highway System,
    transporting natural gas across State and regional boundaries.
        In the wake of the natural gas pipeline accident in San
    Bruno, INGAA's board of directors committed the association and
    its member pipeline companies to the goal of zero pipeline
    safety incidents. While this is a tough and, some would say,
    impossible goal to meet, the emphasis is in the right place, a
    pursuit of excellence.
        INGAA's overarching goal of zero incidents is supported by
    four core principles. These are, one, a commitment to a safety
    culture as a critical dimension of continuous improvement; two,
    a relentless pursuit of improving by learning; three, a
    commitment to apply integrity management principles on a
    systemwide basis; and, four, a commitment to engage with
    stakeholders at all levels. Together, these principles came to
    be known as the INGAA integrity management continuous
    improvement, or IMCI, initiative.
        INGAA supported the most recent reauthorization of the
    Pipeline Safety Act in 2011 as part of its commitment to
    improve pipeline safety. We also support implementation of the
    new law through regulations.
        While progress towards INGAA's goal of zero incidents must
    continue whether new regulations are issued or not, it is
    important and desirable that there be consistency between the
    voluntary commitments in the INGAA action plan and the
    regulations that will implement the 2011 act.
        INGAA has engaged in active dialogue with PHMSA and other
    stakeholders over the past 3 years to achieve this goal. This
    has been constructive, and we have every reason to believe that
    the omnibus rule proposed by PHMSA later this year will reflect
    INGAA's input. Still, these proposed regulations are behind the
    schedule that Congress prescribed in the 2011 act.
        INGAA acknowledges that regulations should be thoughtfully
    considered and include an analysis of cost and benefits. The
    practical consequence of this delay, however, is to erode the
    confidence of some pipeline companies that proceeding with the
    dedication of resources needed to implement pipeline safety
    commitments will be consistent with the final rules adopted by
    PHMSA.
        This hesitancy is rooted in the perceived risk that the
    rules ultimately might compel repeating steps in the pipeline
    safety action plan. This is not insignificant.
        For example, testing pipelines for material strength is
    both costly and disruptive because pipelines need to be removed
    from operation to complete the testing.
        This do-over risk creates a financial risk for pipeline
    operators and their customers as well as the risk of more
    extensive operational disruptions than would be needed. This
    do-over risk should not be permitted to hold us back when we,
    as an industry, and our regulators should be moving forward.
        Our purpose here is to work collaboratively with PHMSA.
    Because the regulatory process indeed goes far beyond what
    PHMSA can control, INGAA wishes to make the point that it is
    critical that these natural gas pipeline safety regulations be
    completed in a workable and timely manner.
        It is worth recalling that the title of the most recent law
    reauthorizing the Pipeline Safety Act makes the point. It is
    the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act
    of 2011. Regulatory certainty is necessary to move forward.
    INGAA pledges to play a constructive role in completing these
    efforts.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I am
    happy to answer any questions that the subcommittee might have.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Santa.
        The next witness is Craig Pierson, president, Marathon Pipe
    Line LLC, on behalf of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines.
        Mr. Pierson, you may proceed.
        Mr. Pierson. Good afternoon.
        I am Craig Pierson, president of Marathon Pipe Line LLC.
        Marathon Pipe Line, headquartered in Findlay, Ohio,
    operates approximately 6,000 miles of pipeline in 14 States,
    mainly from Texas and Louisiana to and throughout the Midwest.
        Marathon transports crude oil and petroleum products to and
    from terminals, refineries and other pipelines. The company
    safely delivers by pipeline an average of 120 million gallons
    of crude oil and petroleum products daily.
        Today I am here in my capacity as vice chairman of American
    Petroleum Institute's Pipeline Subcommittee, speaking on behalf
    of the pipeline members of API and the Association of Oil Pipe
    Lines.
        I am also a member of the joint API and AOPL Pipeline
    Safety Excellence Steering Committee, comprised of liquid
    pipeline executives who help lead industry to improved pipeline
    safety.
        AOPL and API Pipeline members are engaged in numerous
    industrywide pipeline safety efforts, which I will discuss in a
    moment. And I have been pleased to serve on PHMSA's technical
    advisory committee for about 7 years.
        Liquid pipeline infrastructure across the United States
    benefits American consumers and workers. In 2012, liquid
    pipelines transported 14.1 billion barrels of crude oil refined
    products and natural gas liquids across more than 185,000 miles
    of pipeline.
        While pipelines provide good jobs to those who build and
    operate this critical infrastructure, all Americans benefit
    from liquid pipelines to heat their homes, to fuel their
    vehicles, harvest their crops or power jobs with the energy and
    raw materials needed to manufacture most consumer goods.
        Pipelines are safe, reliable and cost-effective for
    transporting energy liquids. In 2012, more than 99.999 percent
    of crude oil petroleum products and natural gas liquids
    transported by pipelines reached their destination safely.
        The safety records of pipelines is an understandable
    outcome of the major financial investments that pipeline
    operators make in pipeline safety each year.
        In 2012, pipeline operators spent more than $1.6 billion
    evaluating, inspecting and maintaining the integrity of their
    pipeline systems.
        Efforts like those have been underway for more than a
    decade. The result is that, over the last 10 years, the number
    of liquid pipeline incidents were reduced by over 60 percent
    and the volumes released by over 45 percent.
        While pipelines are a safe mode of energy transportation,
    liquid pipeline operators remain focused on continuous
    improvement with the ultimate goal of zero incidents.
        Earlier this year pipeline members of AOPL and API launched
    the Pipeline Safety Excellence initiative. This effort reflects
    the shared values and commitment of our members to work
    together to build and safely operate pipelines.
        The Pipeline Safety Excellence initiative is driven by the
    shared principle of zero incidents, continuous improvement and
    learning from other operators' experiences. The goal of zero is
    rooted in the belief that, if we pursue perfection, we can
    achieve excellence.
        Through the continuous industrywide pipeline safety efforts
    of numerous API and AOPL safety workgroups, we decide on our
    priorities, we pool our resources, we share our learnings so
    that other incidents do not recur. Collaboration, cooperation
    and sharing is occurring on a daily basis as we drive on our
    goal to zero.
        Pipeline operators have also begun the annual pipeline
    performance reporting to the public. We have also implemented
    an annual pipeline strategic planning process which is designed
    to make sure that we are today working on tomorrow's
    priorities.
        This process has resulted in the following industry
    standards or guidelines: first, a recommended practice to
    manage, analyze and respond to cracks; second, a guideline to
    integrate data from all threats; third, a recommended practice
    for leak detection; fourth, a recommended practice for
    emergency response; and perhaps most importantly, a recommended
    practice for pipeline safety management systems.
        We are also accelerating research and development for
    improving in-line inspection technology. We are promoting
    safety culture through industrywide sharings of learnings. And
    we are also improving training and communication with our
    emergency responders.
        I look forward to discussing these industrywide safety
    improvement efforts today and, going forward, we welcome the
    opportunity to work with this committee, PHMSA and other
    interested parties on reauthorization of the pipeline safety
    bill.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Pierson.
        Mr. Ron Bradley, vice president, gas operations for PECO
    Energy, on behalf of the American Gas Association.
        You may proceed.
        Mr. Bradley. Good afternoon, Chairman Denham, Ranking
    Member Brown and members of the committee.
        My name is Ron Bradley, and I serve as vice president of
    gas operations at PECO, which provides natural gas distribution
    service to 500,000 natural gas customers in southeastern
    Pennsylvania.
        I appreciate the opportunity to testify today to discuss
    the natural gas distribution industry with particular focus on
    the high priority that the industry places on safety.
        At PECO, we have six core values: safety, integrity,
    diversity, respect, accountability and continuous improvement.
    Safety is our first and foremost of these. My commitment and
    the commitment of our leadership at PECO and our parent
    company, Exelon, is that everyone goes home safe. This includes
    not only our employees, but, also, our customers, our
    contractors and everyone in the communities we serve. PECO's
    safety performance is ranked as one of the best in the Nation,
    and we are proud to have been recognized by national and State
    organizations for this.
        Today I am testifying on behalf of the American Gas
    Association, AGA, which represents more than 200 local
    distribution companies, also known as LDCs, which serve more
    than 71 million customers. AGA's member companies operate 2.4
    million miles of underground pipelines, safely delivering
    clean, affordable natural gas to residential, commercial and
    industrial customers. New technologies are tapping into new
    domestic energy reserves, and natural gas is increasingly
    becoming the fuel of choice for American customers. LDCs
    provide the last critical link in the energy delivery chain
    connecting interstate pipelines directly to homes and
    businesses. Our focus every day is ensuring that we keep the
    gas flowing safely.
        As part of an agreement with the Federal Government, most
    States assume primary responsibility for safety regulation of
    LDCs as well as intrastate transmission pipelines. State
    governments are encouraged to adopt minimum standards
    promulgated by the U.S. Department of Transportation. Many
    States also choose to adopt standards that are more stringent
    than the Federal standards.
        Additionally, our companies are in close contact with State
    pipeline safety inspectors working in a collaborative manner
    that provides for more inspections than required under Federal
    law. LDCs do not operate strictly in a compliance culture, but,
    rather, in a culture of proactive collaborative engagement.
    Each company employs trained safety professionals, provides
    ongoing employee evaluations and safety training, conducts
    rigorous system inspection, testing, maintenance, repair and
    replacement programs, and educates the public on natural gas
    safety.
        AGA's commitment to enhancing safety adopted in 2011
    provides a summary statement of these commitments. The
    association has also developed numerous pipeline safety
    initiatives focused on raising the bar on safety, including
    peer-to-peer reviews and best practice forums that share best
    practices and lessons learned throughout the industry.
        Each year LDCs spend approximately $19 million on safety,
    half of that on voluntary activities. The Pipeline Inspection,
    Protection, Enforcement and Safety Act of 2006 and the Pipeline
    Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 both
    outline several programs that help continue to improve the
    safety of the industry.
        AGA member companies have implemented aspects of these
    programs either through DOT regulations or voluntarily. Many of
    these programs are in their infancy in terms of implementation,
    and we encourage Congress to allow these programs to develop
    and to mature. Good progress is being made toward
    implementation of the 2011 law, and AGA member companies ask
    you to stay the course.
        Layering new laws and regulations on to companies before
    existing regulations have been finalized and given a reasonable
    amount of time to work is likely to create uncertainty that
    undermines our shared safety goals. Work completed to date by
    PHMSA, the industry, NARUC and State regulators and State
    legislators has combined to produce significant improvement
    over the last several years. We should build on that record.
        In terms of specific issues, the Call Before You Dig Damage
    Prevention Program, or 811, has been a great success. The PIPES
    Act also required the establishment of distribution integrity
    management programs. Rules were finalized in February 2010, and
    the industry commends the DOT on the effective manner in which
    the DIMP rules advance safety while taking into consideration
    wide differences among gas operators.
        The industry applauds DOT's work with public and emergency
    responders and is eager to work to develop metrics to assess
    the effectiveness of these programs.
        The industry is experiencing significant uncertainty
    regarding PHMSA's implementation of maximum allowable operating
    pressure and the integrity verification programs.
        We are prepared to act, but regulatory certainty provided
    by implementation of regulations would be beneficial to the
    industry and customers alike.
        Finally, with regard to the replacement of cast iron mains,
    the quantity of these mains continues to steadily decline, now
    making up less than 3 percent of total mileage. There is 33,619
    miles of cast iron mains still in use, and the industry
    estimates that it will cost nearly $83 billion to complete this
    replacement. Gas utilities are working with our legislators and
    regulators to accelerate this process, and the 38 States that
    have adopted innovative rate mechanisms are providing an
    important tool to support this.
        At PECO, we spend $20 million annually on our accelerated
    gas infrastructure maintenance program and $34 million on
    pipeline replacement overall.
        In addition to what I have highlighted today, my written
    testimony provides updates on the industry's efforts with
    regard to incident notification, data collection and
    information sharing and research and development.
        I am pleased to answer questions on these topics or any
    other topics you may have.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Bradley.
        Carl Weimer, executive director, Pipeline Safety Trust.
        Mr. Weimer, you may proceed.
        Mr. Weimer. Good afternoon, Chairman Denham, Ranking Member
    Brown and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting
    me to speak today on the important subject of pipeline safety.
        The Pipeline Safety Trust came into being after a pipeline
    disaster that occurred 15 years ago next month. While
    prosecuting that incident, the U.S. Justice Department was so
    aghast at the way the pipeline company had operated and
    maintained their pipeline and at the lack of oversight from
    Federal regulators that they asked the Federal courts to set
    aside money from the settlement of that case to create the
    Pipeline Safety Trust as a watchdog organization over both the
    industry and the regulators. We have been trying to fulfill
    that vision ever since.
        Reviewing the implementation of the Pipeline Safety,
    Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 is somewhat
    difficult because so many of the required reports and changes
    to the regulations have yet to be produced.
        The slowness of the reporting and rulemaking process seems
    at odds with the public proclamations of concern and action
    from the administration. While many are frustrated by the slow
    progress, it is difficult to know exactly where to lay the
    blame.
        PHMSA is certainly partially to blame, since they have been
    slow to produce the required reports and regulations, but they
    have also been clear with Congress for a number of years now
    that they lack the resources needed to complete their mission
    in a timely manner.
        We also have noted that many times regulation in the
    reports gets significantly delayed by the Secretary's office
    itself or by the White House Office of Information and
    Regulatory Affairs. It would appear there is plenty of blame to
    be shared for the slowness in implementing many important
    pipeline safety initiatives.
        Even with this slowness and delay, over the past few years,
    progress has been made, as evidenced by the reduction in the
    number of incidents that involve injuries or death to all-time
    low levels.
        The pipeline industry, regulators, the public interest
    groups, have come together with a publicly stated common goal
    of zero incidents, a goal that will continually drive all
    involved to do even better.
        So while today I may criticize the implementation of some
    sections of the 2011 act, none of us should lose sight of the
    progress that has been made over the past few years.
        PHMSA has in play a number of significant rulemakings that
    may very well address many of the key issues they were told to
    address in the 2011 act and are also concerns raised in NTSB
    recommendations, things like expansion of integrity management,
    leak detection, automated shutoff valves, gas-gathering lines,
    excess flow valves, depth of burial in stream crossings and
    verification of operating pressures.
        We say these issues may be addressed because at this point
    we really don't know. While PHMSA has started the rulemaking
    process for many of these issues, for most of these items, no
    actual rule or proposed rule has been produced. Some of these
    efforts started well over 3 years ago, and the exact nature of
    the holdup is unclear.
        We ask that you request specific information from PHMSA,
    the Secretary's office and the White House Office of
    Information and Regulatory Affairs to determine where the
    holdup lies and what is being done to correct it.
        Concerned citizens and the pipeline industry alike are in a
    state of limbo regarding these regulatory issues because of the
    length of these delays.
        Congress also asked for nonrulemaking studies and actions
    in the 2011 act which are yet to be accomplished. The areas we
    are most concerned with include the availability of facility
    response plans, maps of high-consequence areas, a study of the
    transport of diluted bitumen, a report on excavation damage and
    a report on gathering lines.
        The gathering line issue is of particular importance to us,
    since we see thousands of new miles of gathering lines going
    into the ground each year with the majority of them being
    completely unregulated.
        With the large increase of new pipeline infrastructure in
    some parts of the country, the aging infrastructure in need of
    replacement in other areas and the increased complexity of
    risk-based regulations, we believe a significant increase in
    personnel to ensure the safety of the Nation's pipelines are
    justified.
        PHMSA's 2013 budget requested funding for an additional 150
    positions it said were needed to carry out its pipeline safety
    mission.
        PHMSA requested an additional $20.8 million to help provide
    additional funding to State programs where the majority of the
    pipeline safety inspectors are employed. We believe such
    increases in resources are needed and hope you will support
    them.
        In conclusion, as we move closer to the next
    reauthorization of the National Pipeline Safety Program, we
    would support a straight reauthorization of the current program
    with additional funding in the near term to allow PHMSA the
    time to finally produce all the rules and reports previously
    requested and address the long list of recommendations from the
    National Transportation Safety Board.
        Thank you again for inviting us to testify today, and I
    would be glad to answer any questions.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Weimer.
        I ask unanimous consent that our witnesses' full statements
    be included in the record. Without objection, so ordered.
        At this time I would like to recognize Ranking Member
    Corrine Brown for any opening statement she might have.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I think I am just going to go right to the questions.
        Ms. Quarterman, at the last meeting, I asked a question
    during the HAZMAT hearing, but did not get a good response from
    DOT.
        So I ask again: What inspections and enforced resources do
    you need for hazardous and separate pipelines?
        Ms. Quarterman. For hazardous materials or for pipelines or
    for both?
        Ms. Brown. Separate.
        Ms. Quarterman. OK. Separate.
        The President's budget for 2015 adds additional resources
    for the pipeline safety program, which includes an additional
    60 FTE.
        For the hazardous material program, we have an additional
    three FTE, but there is also a separate line item, which is a
    $40 million fund to fund energy projects. It includes all
    agencies within the department that address transportation of
    crude oil.
        Ms. Brown. Many groups have voiced concern about the length
    of time it takes for DOT to finalize two major rulemakings. One
    is for liquid pipelines, and one is for the gas pipelines.
        What is the status of the rulemaking? And why have there
    been so many delays?
        And Mr. Bradley and Mr. Pierson may want to answer that,
    and Mr. Weimer too. But I want to start with you, Ms.
    Quarterman.
        Ms. Quarterman. These are very complicated and complex
    rulemakings. As you know, when we put out an advance notice of
    proposed rulemaking with respect to hazardous liquids and we
    put out a separate one with respect to gas transmission and gas
    gathering, they were basically across the board, asking about
    everything that deals with those items.
        I am happy to report that we have a draft of both of those
    rules, one of which is at the office of the OMB for review. The
    gas transmission rule is in circulation for comment and,
    hopefully, we will be able to move that forward very quickly as
    well.
        Ms. Brown. We have heard a number of concerns about the
    condition of two pipelines under the Great Lakes called Line 5.
    These pipelines are nearly 60 years old.
        What does DOT know about the condition of Line 5? And what
    has DOT done to ensure that they are safe?
        And I would like Mr. Weimer, my person, to comment on that,
    also.
        Ms. Quarterman, you first, though.
        Ms. Quarterman. OK. Thank you.
        With respect to Line 5 of the Lakehead System, if you will
    recall, there was a series of incidents associated with
    Enbridge over the past few years and, as a result of those
    incidents, the Department put the first and one-of-a-kind, I
    think, consent decree with the company that included the entire
    Lakehead pipeline system.
        I have been having meetings twice a month with respect to
    our work on that pipeline system in which we get updates on
    everything that is happening. It is a comprehensive review of
    every aspect of that program. We have spent about 300 man-years
    so far overseeing the program.
        With respect to Line 5 in specific, when we first saw in
    media accounts there were concerns with respect to that
    pipeline, we immediately contacted Enbridge and asked them what
    were their plans, what were they planning to do with that line,
    and we began to look back at past testing information to see
    what we could learn about it.
        So I have responded very recently to a series of
    congressional inquiries about that. I am happy to share a copy
    of that response with you to give you a sense of all the
    testing that has been performed on those lines.
        Suffice it to say that the plan that Enbridge has with
    respect to Line 5 is to increase throughput on that line, but
    it is beneath the existing maximum operating pressure of that
    line.
        Ms. Brown. Would you like to respond to that?
        Mr. Weimer. Sure. Thank you for the question.
        Due to the spill of nearly 1 million gallons of crude oil
    into the Kalamazoo River in 2010, there is a heightened
    awareness of pipeline issues in the Great Lakes States.
        Citizens in that area are particularly concerned with one
    of the lines, Line 5, that goes under the Great Lakes. It is
    one of the few pipelines that goes under a waterway for that
    distance, crossing at the Straits of Mackinac.
        I think the main issue is that the company and PHMSA have
    not been particularly transparent with the people that have
    been asking the questions about what shape that pipeline is in,
    how it has been tested, what those test results showed.
        We have no information to help elucidate whether that
    pipeline is safe or not, but we hope that the company has that
    information. It would be nice if they would share it with the
    citizens of Michigan.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you.
        Ms. Quarterman, is PHMSA considering taking a number of the
    pending regulations and putting them into a mega-rule?
        Ms. Quarterman. We are not. We have many regulations that
    are pending. We have a rule for gas transmission which covers a
    number of issues, if that is what you are referring to.
        Mr. Denham. We have heard that, with the large backlog of
    pending regulations, that the agency was looking at combining a
    number of those rules into a mega-rule.
        Ms. Quarterman. No. That is not the case.
        Mr. Denham. That is not the case. OK.
        Mr. Santa, what are some of the biggest concerns with
    PHMSA's rulemaking progress to date with the 2011 Pipeline
    Safety Act?
        Mr. Santa. Chairman Denham, as I noted in my testimony, I
    think that our concern really has to do with the risks created
    by moving forward with our voluntary pipeline safety
    commitments and the possibility that, due to delay in the rule,
    our member pipelines may face some do-over risks. In other
    words, they do the right thing, but the rule then requires them
    to do more, which would create financial risk and, also,
    operational interference, which could affect both the pipelines
    and their customers.
        Mr. Denham. Mr. Pierson?
        Mr. Pierson. With regard to the notice of proposed
    rulemaking for hazardous liquids, we support it moving forward.
        We perform integrity management on about twice as many
    miles of pipeline as we need to beyond HCAs, and we think that
    the new rule--although we have not seen it, we think the new
    rule will recognize that.
        Mr. Denham. Mr. Bradley?
        Mr. Bradley. Yes. As I mentioned in my testimony, Chairman,
    I believe that there is a risk of uncertainty of regulation.
        The good news is that, at AGA, in 2011, we crafted with the
    approval of the AGA board the AGA commitment to safety, which
    had us commit to doing a number of activities that were over
    and above the regulations. So that hedged the risk a little,
    but uncertainty still lies out there.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you.
        Ms. Quarterman, the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act required PHMSA
    to conduct a study about the sufficiency of pipeline
    regulations for the transportation of diluted bitumen. The
    study was completed by the National Research Council.
        Can you summaries what the major findings of the report
    were.
        Ms. Quarterman. The report concluded that diluted bitumen
    was not substantially different from any of the other crudes
    that were moving on the pipeline system.
        That report, I think, has been shared with Congress. It
    came out last June, I believe. We are still working on putting
    a formal letter to you, a reporting to you, on the results of
    that report. But we will hopefully get it to you soon.
        Mr. Denham. Based on that study, does PHMSA feel that the
    current regulations are sufficient for pipelines transporting
    the diluted Bitumen?
        Ms. Quarterman. Well, we have a pending rulemaking that is
    coming forward with respect to a hazardous liquids pipeline.
    And to the extent that we thought there was any need to do
    anything more, it would within the context of that rulemaking.
        In addition, as a part of our 2014 budget, there was a
    requirement that we do a further study to evaluate whether
    dilbit spills are more risky than spills of other crudes moved
    in the United States. We are in the process of finalizing a
    contract with the National Academy of Sciences to do that study
    as well.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you.
        I recognize Mr. Michaud.
        Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Weimer, since World War II, a pipeline in Maine and
    Vermont and New Hampshire has shipped crude oil north to
    Canada. Recently, speculation that the pipeline flow will be
    reversed to ship tar sands down from Canada has raised a lot of
    concern among my constituents.
        Center to the concerns is the fact that--around the
    adequacy of spill response plans, the structural integrity of
    an aging pipeline and its ability to hold up the shipping of
    new material in the opposite direction.
        Many congressional Representatives from the region,
    including myself, have called for a new EIF and Presidential
    permit before such a pipeline operation can move forward.
        My question is: As an independent watchdog of the industry
    and regulator, are there other precautions or requirements you
    believe that would be necessary in order to maintain the
    pipeline's current safety operation?
        Mr. Weimer. Yes. Thank you for the question.
        I am aware of that pipeline. That pipeline actually has a
    very good safety record up to this point, but I think the
    concerns of reversing that pipeline and running a different
    type of crude oil through it are justified.
        I think the issues you laid are some of the main ones that
    need to be looked at. I know the State of New Hampshire
    recently took on spill prevention on their own because they
    were concerned that the Federal Government under PHMSA was not
    doing an adequate job of spill prevention, especially for oil
    sands types of crude where they may sink if they get out of the
    pipeline, which I think is the major concern up in that part of
    the country.
        So I think the things you laid out--looking at the
    hydraulic changes, the different constituency of that pipeline,
    what that might do to particularly stress on the pipeline, an
    aging pipeline, and then spill response if that material should
    get out--are the key things people should be looking at. And
    the States do have some authority on spill response planning.
        Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much.
        This question is for Mr. Bradley, Mr. Pierson and Mr.
    Santa.
        The current natural gas bottleneck in New England is
    crippling Maine's manufacturing base because we are at the end
    of the pipeline.
        Without increased natural gas capacity and getting
    industrial end users connected to the pipeline, Maine will
    continue to lose manufacturing jobs. A recent regional
    agreement between New England Governors is a good start, but
    more still needs to be done.
        My question is: As representatives of the private sector,
    what more can be done at the Federal, State or local level to
    increase natural gas supplied to Maine?
        We will start with Mr. Santa.
        Mr. Santa. Thank you for that question, Mr. Michaud.
        We are well aware of the capacity bottlenecks in New
    England and the effect that that is having on the region's
    consumers and industry.
        INGAA's members have proposed new pipeline capacity into
    that region. One of those projects is going ahead, the
    Algonquin Incremental Market Project. Others are in their open
    seasons.
        We applaud the region's Governors for their leadership
    through NESCOE in proposing that the cost of additional
    capacity, especially the capacity to serve electric generators,
    be defrayed by including those costs in ISO New England's
    transmission tariff.
        We also applaud some of the region's electric distribution
    companies--National Grid, United Illuminating, Northeast
    Utilities--for stepping up to be the anchor shippers on that
    pipeline capacity.
        So we are very hopeful that the region has reached a
    breakthrough and INGAA's members are very committed to getting
    more pipeline into that market.
        Mr. Pierson. From the hazardous liquids perspective, we
    have a bit different process to establish a new pipeline. As
    you know, pipelines connect supply with demand and, as demand
    changing, supply changes.
        We have got shippers that, when they have a strong need to
    make a move in a particular movement, they will make
    commitments that enable the capital to expand the pipeline.
        Mr. Bradley. Thank you for the question.
        As an LDC and the last link in the line, we are downstream
    of New England. One of the things we want to make sure we do is
    to ensure that our customers that are on an interruptible rate
    do interrupt when they should so we don't pull more gas off the
    line than we should and our customers don't pull more gas off
    the line.
        We also want to make sure that our peak day demand is well
    appropriated and we have contracts in place successively and
    demand contracts in place to move gas along the pipe.
        Mr. Michaud. Great. Thank you again.
        Administrator Quarterman, I want to thank you for your
    testimony today. And I recognize that your agency is still
    working to develop the new regulations required by the 2011
    act.
        And I would like to urge you to promulgate those rules as
    quickly as possible so that the private sector has the
    certainty that it needs to invest and expand capacity, you
    know, in regions like the State of Maine.
        So I want to thank all the panelists once again for your
    testimony this afternoon. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Michaud.
        Mr. Meehan.
        Mr. Meehan. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I thank the panel for their discussion on this very,
    very issue.
        Mr. Santa, talk to me a little bit about the flow of gas
    right now in the United States. We have had a remarkable
    opportunity created by the discovery of shale gas, particularly
    in Pennsylvania and other kinds of places, my colleague from
    Maine discussing simultaneously.
        And I know upstate New York and others went through a very
    difficult winter in which we had the recognition that we have
    got trapped gas assets in the ground, but an inability to get
    them to the market as quickly as we would like to.
        Obviously, I think we have implications globally to the
    extent we are able to. And my own observation sort of indicates
    that some of this is dictated by the inability to have the
    transmission lines for the gas sufficient to be able to move
    it.
        What is your observations on that? What are the
    opportunities here? And what are the impediments to being able
    to more quickly access this shale gas?
        Mr. Santa. Thank you for the question, Mr. Meehan.
        You are right. The changes that we have seen have been
    nothing short of revolutionary in terms of domestic natural gas
    production and, also, oil production due to the shale
    resources.
        This also has had a significant effect upon pipelines
    because in many cases, this gas is located in places where gas
    historically was not produced. And so we are seeing changes in
    flows on the pipelines and some dislocations caused by that.
        The good part is that the industry and the market are
    responding. When you see those capacity constraints that are
    signaled by the high prices we saw, for example, this past
    winter with the polar vortex, it sends a very powerful price
    signal that new capacity is needed and creates the incentive
    for shippers to step up and pay for that pipeline capacity.
        So I do believe overall that the market is going to solve
    this situation. And you are right. With the Marcellus shale,
    there is a remarkable amount of supply sitting literally on the
    doorstep of New England but for the pipeline capacity to get it
    there.
        Mr. Meehan. Is there an impediment to being able to get it
    there or is it simply a market-based situation?
        Mr. Santa. There are a couple of things that could be done
    that I think could help expedite the situation. The Federal
    Energy Regulatory Commission overall does a good job with
    pipeline siting. However, often a lot of the other permits that
    are needed get delayed.
        Mr. Meehan. Local permits or Federal permits?
        Mr. Santa. Primarily, Federal permits, although, in some
    instances, because authority has been delegated, it is the
    States. The House passed H.R. 1900 last year, which was a bill
    that was intended to assist that situation.
        Also, as I discussed with Mr. Michaud, getting the
    situation in New England, aligning the demand created by the
    electric generation market with somebody who has got the
    wherewithal and the creditworthiness to pay for pipeline
    capacity is a big part of answering the question there.
        Mr. Meehan. I think you also pointed. And I think it is not
    just moving those minerals for the purpose of heat and
    otherwise, but it also could be a real asset with manufacturing
    and other kinds of capacity, that we could complete globally
    much--you know, and this is something--each and every day that
    goes by is an opportunity we are losing to complete globally.
        Mr. Santa. It has been a tremendous boon to the U.S.
    petrochemical industry and other industries. As a matter of
    fact, some of that Marcellus gas and some of the pipes that
    previously had brought gas from the gulf coast and Midcontinent
    to the Northeast are getting reversed to take that gas to the
    gulf coast to feed those petrochemical complexes.
        Mr. Meehan. Mr. Bradley, you are in the gas business.
        Do you have any thoughts on this?
        Mr. Bradley. Once again, as the last guy on the line of
    using natural gas, I tend to think that, as Mr. Santa said, the
    flow--you do see the flow moving.
        You do see the natural gas from the gulf starting to make a
    reverse, and you do see more flow especially at PECO. We have
    more Marcellus flow into our territories.
        Mr. Meehan. Yes. But we are moving gas a long way to go
    down to the gulf to turn it around to bring it back.
        Mr. Bradley. Right.
        Mr. Meehan. That is what doesn't make sense to me when we
    have gas sitting right in Pennsylvania, right next to New
    England, New York and everything else.
        Mr. Bradley. That is right.
        And, in Pennsylvania, the actual amount of gas that is
    being produced is switching quickly. We have gone from 90
    percent from the gulf 4 or 5 years ago and 10 percent
    Marcellus. Last year we were 40 percent Marcellus.
        So the market is starting to shift and more Marcellus is
    flowing into Pennsylvania, especially when we have it as a
    source there.
        So I see the market fundamentals changing quickly, and I
    think over the coming years it will continue to have an impact
    on the area.
        Mr. Meehan. Just one closing question.
        Ms. Quarterman, where are we these days on the question of
    the--a lot of the older urban areas? And I represent an older
    urban area we have seen within the cast iron pipe and urban
    areas.
        Where do we sit with that in terms of how that will be
    transformed into the modern pipe that would be safer?
        Ms. Quarterman. A few years ago the Department, along with
    many of our industry partners, got together for a Call to
    Action to try to replace some of this old high-risk
    infrastructure like cast iron pipe, and we put up on our Web
    site sort of a report card of where we are and where we are
    going.
        We have been working very hard with AGA and with the
    National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners to say
    this is an opportunity.
        The production--the amount of production of gas means that
    the price is going down. Now is the time to invest in new
    infrastructure and removing the old infrastructure.
        As a result of those efforts, we have now 38 States that
    have put into their format--their regulatory format the ability
    to have companies recover the costs for that kind of
    replacement.
        So we are continuing to drive it, but it is not happening
    fast enough. Hopefully, we will see a continued movement to
    remove that pipe.
        Mr. Meehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Meehan.
        Mr. Walz?
        Mr. Walz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you all for being here. I appreciate it.
        Administrator Quarterman, I want to thank you for the kind
    words you had about our colleague and my friend, Jim Oberstar.
    I am very appreciative of that, and I think all of us here
    certainly miss him already.
        For each of you, I appreciate the work you do. I appreciate
    and I think there is a lot of lessons learned in this about
    continuing to move forward.
        I also, like many of my colleagues--we have a wonderful
    opportunity for American energy. The market is changing fairly
    dramatically in front of our eyes. I think is it is incumbent
    upon us to move ahead of that or at least with it, if you will.
        And I have just kind of a side note question because there
    is a lot of expertise here. With the safety record and with the
    things that deal with pipelines, one of the things--and, again,
    the Administrator has been on top of this issue with us.
        In my part of the world, Minnesota, we have now an
    unprecedented amount of oil moving above the ground on moving
    pipelines and trains from the Bakken oil fields.
        And my question kind of focuses on as we are looking at
    different things out there, dealing with this or whatever, is
    the spill response plans and the idea of the industry taking on
    this that doesn't apply on the railroads.
        Maybe, if I could--and I know this is fairly broad, but it
    would help me understand--is a mandatory spill response plan--
    is it helpful? Can it be of use? Is it something that could
    apply on that side of the House as it does on pipelines?
        And I don't know who wants to take a stab at this.
        Mr. Pierson?
        Mr. Pierson. Your question speaks to the rail industry; is
    that correct?
        Mr. Walz. Yes, that is correct. But I think the lessons
    learned, I want to know how you have that, because they don't
    have that, if I am not mistaken. We talked about that,
    mandatory spill response. It is not that they don't have a
    plan. They do. It is just different from what is asked of you.
        Mr. Pierson. We do support the mandatory spill response
    plans, and they need to evolve as the commodity we transport
    evolves. And we have currently an improvement initiative
    underway to develop a recommended practice for operators on how
    to implement their emergency response plans better. So are they
    essential to our industry? Yes, they are.
        Mr. Walz. Is it a partnership--do you view it that way, it
    is a partnership between you and the regulators and the
    different people involved with the industry? Because I think
    there is no doubt whatsoever both rail and the pipelines, our
    interests are the same, to move commodities safely and as
    efficiently as possible. We have that same. Is it helpful when
    you have input in that, or does it feel like the mandatory part
    of it is asking you to conform to that, or does it run both
    ways? I guess my question is trying to get the very best
    response plan for my first responders as well as the experts
    that are moving this material.
        Mr. Pierson. The response plan is collaborative. We submit
    response plans. Our regulator has a chance to comment on them,
    and from that perspective, if they have got comments, it is
    collaborative.
        With regard to first responders, that relationship is one
    that is vital to us, and trying to establish a relationship
    with first responders throughout the breadth of our operations
    is very much a challenge. But quite often they will be there
    first or early, and they are an essential component. We are
    working with them to try to improve the training--improve their
    training, improve the communication that we have got with them.
        Mr. Walz. That is the very same issue--that is what I
    thought, the very same issue you are hearing from them. It is
    the communication piece, the long-term training, the
    commitment, because it is very difficult, especially smaller
    communities, how you keep them trained and how you get them out
    there. I appreciate that, and with that I yield back, Mr.
    Chairman. Thank you, all.
        Mr. Denham. Thank you, Mr. Walz.
        Mr. Hanna.
        Mr. Hanna. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thanks for being here today. I just want to ask a simple
    question. First of all, Btu gallon-for-gallon, barrel-for-
    barrel, is there a safer way to move product than underground?
        Mr. Santa. Mr. Hanna, I think the record demonstrates that
    pipelines, and energy pipelines in particular, are the safest
    mode of transportation.
        Mr. Hanna. Right. So something like the Keystone pipeline
    might make sense considering the rail accidents we see.
        There is a theme that I started to go into, but regulatory
    uncertainty--and I have talked to manufacturers of pipe and
    manufacturers of new products, liners for things like cast
    iron, which I know you are familiar with, I am familiar with.
    The lack of regulatory certainty--and I respect the fact that
    Ms. Quarterman is here and you have other constraints--but 8
    out of the 42 mandates implemented in 2011 are past their
    deadline, and we have a group of people here that uniformly--
    particularly Mr. Bradley spoke to it--find this to be an
    impediment to the work they are trying to do, the progress they
    are trying to make. In spite of the fact that the safety record
    has improved so much, et cetera, and fines are apparently up, I
    am not sure if that is it a good thing or a bad thing, but, you
    know, it is kind of blaming the victim, too, when these people
    are waiting for rules and regulations, willing to comply,
    anxious to find out what it is that they need to operate under,
    and yet they are at a loss for that.
        Do you think that you are keeping up with the industry and
    its demands, or would you--I mean, I would just like a
    response, because you have got four men who are here who
    generally are upset that--I don't want to put words in
    anybody's mouths--but feel constrained by the lack of product
    by your Department. And I say that respectfully. I know you
    have a lot on your plate.
        Ms. Quarterman. Well, let me say we did get 42 mandates
    with the new act; however, we got no new dollars. So the fact
    that we have done 50 percent without those additional
    resources, I think, has been great work on our part.
        The things that are far behind, or behind, are not so far
    behind that I think these gentlemen have to worry. When we talk
    about regulatory certainty, one of the things, there was a
    provision in the act that required us to do something within 18
    months. We said at the time the act came out there is
    absolutely no way that we will be able to get to a final rule
    in 18 months. And, in fact, during that 18-month period, we
    were only able to get through the information collection to get
    enough information in order to go forward with a further
    rulemaking, because you need that information in order to be
    able to support the costs associated with the rule.
        So instead of going forward with the rulemaking, we did a
    notice to the public that said this is what we are thinking of
    doing. This is the verification process that we think we will
    have when we do a final rule, and we welcome your comments on
    this before we could get to the step of the making the rule.
    And we got comments on those, and we made adoptions.
        So there is knowledge about where we are headed. It is just
    not in a rulemaking----
        Mr. Hanna. You are fully aware that you have a number of
    men and companies, big corporations--I live in--I represent the
    Binghamton area, Marcellus shale, all of that--that are
    cooperative. They are begging for support, begging for help,
    begging for direction and certainty. And you can go a long way
    towards that. And I don't hear a single person that isn't
    willing to fully cooperate.
        Mr. Bradley?
        Mr. Bradley. If I may, as I mentioned in my comments, I
    think PHMSA has been working diligently. The good news is that
    it is not hard to have a conversation with PHMSA. We are doing
    some things, and we look forward and continually look forward
    to working with them as we close out on this. I don't want to
    be overly partial.
        Mr. Hanna. Mr. Pierson?
        Mr. Pierson. I would agree with Mr. Bradley's comments. One
    of the things that we are working closely with PHMSA on is our
    pipeline safety management system. I made reference to that.
    And it was the recommendation that came from NTSB that came to
    industry. But we are working quite closely with PHMSA on some
    industry practice that can move the safety needle. So absent
    rulemaking, PHMSA is making some progress on moving forward.
        Mr. Hanna. Thank you. My time has expired. Thank you,
    Chairman.
        Mrs. Capito [presiding]. Thank you.
        I would like to recognize the gentlewoman from California
    Ms. Hahn.
        Ms. Hahn. Thank you. And I did want to thank Chairman
    Denham for holding this hearing. I was one of those who asked
    for this hearing. I wanted to have it in Los Angeles, but
    because of budget constraints, we are having it here, but I
    still welcome this. I appreciate Administrator Quarterman being
    here as well as all of the witnesses. I appreciate your
    testimony.
        I represent the Ports of Los Angeles, and part of Long
    Beach, and all the oil and gas pipelines connecting the ports
    with refineries in the area, and pipeline safety is very, very
    important to me, particularly for the communities surrounding
    those ports, mostly underserved communities, mostly working
    class, poor communities. And if there ever was environmental
    injustice, it is with those communities. The burdens that they
    have to bear because of living in proximity to our Nation's
    economic engines is unfortunate.
        One of the communities, Wilmington, I have represented
    almost 15 years, once when I was on the city council in Los
    Angeles and now here in Congress. Wilmington sits on one of the
    largest oil fields in the Nation; has a ton of pipelines
    running underneath residences, schools, near soccer fields.
        Unfortunately in March a so-called idle pipeline burst,
    causing thousands of gallons of crude oil to spill into a
    residential street, which wreaked havoc on this community not
    just when the spill occurred, but the enormous amount of
    cleanup that has to take place afterwards. Heavy equipment,
    jackhammering, really huge inconvenience, and that is like at
    the best saying we are inconvenienced. At the worst, people had
    health issues. A couple of members went to the hospital. People
    were overcome with nausea, headaches. I went out on the site
    myself, and the smell of crude oil absolutely made me and my
    aide sick to our stomachs.
        So I have a big issue. I am proud of Congress for passing
    this act in 2011, and I am proud of PHMSA for doing the best
    you can to actually implement some of these mandates, but I
    feel like there is a couple of loopholes. This law expires in
    2015, and if we are going to reauthorize it, I hope we look at
    some of the loopholes that I think still exist.
        I appreciate all of you talking about all the work that our
    pipeline owners and operators are doing, many of them on a
    voluntary basis, and thinking about pipeline safety every
    single day. The problem is I had an incident where the pipeline
    operator didn't think about pipeline safety every day; in fact,
    hadn't thought about it for 15 years.
        This company purchased a pipeline from another company and
    assumed it was idle and never inspected it. The State of
    California, the fire marshals obviously never held them
    accountable. You know, what happened was it leaked and caused
    great injury to this community.
        So part of what I have learned--and correct me if I am
    wrong--is that there is really no such thing as an idle
    pipeline. It is either active or abandoned. And if it is
    active, it has to be inspected, and we have some verification
    of that. If it is abandoned, it has to be sealed up and filled
    with some material. So the fact that they even classified this
    as idle, and the California fire marshals allowed them to
    classify this as idle, brings up a huge issue to me that there
    is some misinterpretation of our Federal regulations.
        So I guess I would ask you, Ms. Quarterman, how do you
    communicate with States or other regulatory agencies on how
    Federal laws should be interpreted? And what kind of
    evaluations take place within PHMSA to evaluate how our States
    are following the law? This was a huge loophole, really
    unnecessary, and resulted in a tragedy mainly because we have
    this honor system of how we allow operators and owners of
    pipelines to exist.
        Ms. Quarterman. We have partnerships with 53 different
    Federal and State agencies. Every one, except for Alaska and
    Hawaii, all of the other States have adopted. And what they are
    required to do is take the Federal laws that are in existence
    and create a State law that has at a minimum exactly what are
    in the Federal laws. If they want to add on top of that
    additional requirements based on their State conditions, they
    may do so.
        Ms. Hahn. But they were interpreting this wrong.
        Ms. Quarterman. I agree with you on that. I don't know if
    the California Office of the State Fire Marshal interpreted it
    wrong; I understand the operator interpreted it wrong. Because
    you are absolutely correct. There are active pipelines, and
    there are abandoned pipelines. The term ``idle pipeline'' does
    not exist in the pipeline safety law. So if you have a pipeline
    that is active, but idle, you still have to meet the
    requirements of the law.
        Ms. Hahn. This one was not inspected for over 15 years.
        I will take a second round.
        Mrs. Capito. The gentlewoman's time has expired.
        Mr. Massie from Kentucky.
        Mr. Massie. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Santa and Mr. Pierson or Mr. Bradley, I am an engineer,
    and so I am interested in some of the technical details here.
    Can you describe any of the technologies that your companies or
    member companies have adopted voluntarily over the years, the
    new technologies that allow you to inspect pipelines? Because
    just because we don't see somebody come out and look at the
    pipeline, I think, doesn't mean it is not being inspected.
        Mr. Pierson, just generally could you describe some of
    those technologies?
        Mr. Pierson. I will speak to in-line inspection
    technologies. There are about six different technologies now.
    It is evolving. It is probably moving more towards seven or
    eight. And if you think about a medical issue where you use an
    X-ray to look for some issues, you use an MRI, there are
    different technologies to look for different issues, there are
    two main technologies. One is ultrasonic, and the other is
    magnetic, and they orient the signals to find certain flaws.
        So there is a lot of work going on. We are accelerating our
    research and development in the pipeline industry to help find
    cracks in weld seams that we can't find today. And there is a
    lot of work going on, and it is highly technical work.
        Mr. Massie. Probably beyond our ability in Congress to
    comprehend it.
        So how would you, for instance, monitor corrosion in a pipe
    without actually going to that location physically?
        Mr. Pierson. Using in-line technology. There is about three
    different tools that we would use, depending upon the type of
    corrosion you are looking for. So there is different types of
    corrosion which need different technologies to find them.
        Mr. Massie. All right. Mr. Santa?
        Mr. Santa. Very much the same as Mr. Pierson said. The
    improvements in the ILI, or in-line inspection technology, are
    remarkable. These are also referred to by the term ``smart
    pig,'' referring to the cylindrical devices that are put into
    the pipeline, and then the ability to attach the diagnostic
    tools to them.
        A lot of the focus following the 2002 reauthorization and
    implementation of the first integrity management program for
    the gas transmission pipelines was on corrosion. Now we are
    expanding to develop devices that can be used for other
    purposes. For example, it is hoped that we can develop in-line
    inspection technology that can test the material strength and
    therefore be applied to a lot of the testing that is likely to
    be required pursuant to the PHMSA's new regulations. If we
    could do that, it would probably be more effective and also
    save us from both the cost and disruption of doing hydrostatic
    testing of pipelines.
        Mr. Massie. Thank you.
        Mr. Bradley.
        Mr. Bradley. Thank you, sir, just a few ideas. I know
    someone mentioned earlier cast iron pipe lining. That is
    another way to extend the life, although predominantly what we
    are doing in the industry is retiring cast iron and replacing
    it with more modern materials. We expanded the use of excess
    flow values on the distribution side so that we can go from
    single-family units up to multifamily units or small commercial
    properties.
        And as we put more plastic in the ground in the residential
    and commercial areas, we have gone to newer technologies to
    make sure that we can find it using GIS, tracker systems,
    marker balls, different things that are out there that help us
    so that we can help reduce underground damages as we go
    forward.
        Mr. Massie. So, in the time I have remaining, I want to go
    from the technical side to the people side. How important is it
    to do public education in communities where the pipelines are
    located, Mr. Pierson?
        Mr. Pierson. One of the most dangerous failures that we can
    suffer is one caused by third-party damage where someone
    doesn't call 811. And typically when there is excavation near a
    pipeline, that means that people are nearby, and the pipeline
    can be perforated, and then you have got a real safety issue.
        So we very, very much support getting the word out on 811.
    We also support the notice of proposed rulemaking that PHMSA is
    working on to improve damage enforcement in the States. The
    States have this authority, and PHMSA is moving them to use the
    authority to make sure people call 811.
        Mr. Massie. I just want to say in my neighborhood the
    pipeline is a very good member of the community. It is unseen.
    But, for instance, every year they show up, and it is not what
    we would call a high-risk community. It is rural. They give a
    ball cap to everybody that lives anywhere near it and a
    refrigerator magnet, and nobody has any excuses for not knowing
    to call about digging, before they dig. So it has been a good
    experience in our community. Thank you.
        Mrs. Capito. Mr. DeFazio from Oregon.
        Mr. DeFazio. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Madam Administrator, I know it is not the direct subject of
    today's hearing, but I would like to turn to railcars yet
    again. We have had a couple of discussions of this issue this
    year, and there is a rumor that a rule has been forwarded from
    your agency which includes both railcar specifications and
    integrity issues and, secondly, operating issues, which, of
    course, are not the domain of your agency, in which you have no
    particular expertise.
        First, is there such a rule that combines both; and
    secondly, if you did the combine both, were you in full
    consultation with the FRA on the operational aspects?
        Ms. Quarterman. I am happy to report that the rumors are
    true, that we have, in fact, completed a draft rulemaking in
    consultation with FRA. I think I mentioned it the last hearing
    that we were sort of--our folks were sequestered together for a
    long time, and they turned around a rule in a couple of months.
    That rule does include a comprehensive approach to rail safety.
    It includes--I can't tell you the details of it, but it does
    address tank car issues and operational and safety issues.
        As to jurisdictional oversight, PHMSA is responsible for
    the movement of hazardous materials by all modes, which is not
    just packages, but also all the operational considerations that
    go with those movements as well.
        Mr. DeFazio. Right, but rail movement is an incredibly
    complicated issue, and I just want--but in any case, you were
    in full consultation with the FRA, and whatever it is that has
    been forwarded, they deem to be practicable and they are in
    agreement with?
        Ms. Quarterman. Absolutely. Joe Szabo and I have been like
    this.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. So where--can you tell me where this
    rulemaking is now residing and when the public might see it?
        Ms. Quarterman. It is in the Office of Management and
    Budget, the OIRA office. They have, pursuant, I think, to an
    Executive order, a 90-day period during which they review the
    rule. I don't know what day we are on now in that review
    process. Of course, they can take longer or shorter. We are
    encouraging them to move as quickly as possible.
        Mr. DeFazio. I don't want to get in trouble here, but what
    does OMB--other than I know they have to do cost-benefit
    analyses, but what other expertise can they bring to bear if
    they are sitting around--if they are actively considering the
    rule?
        Ms. Quarterman. Well, they have many questions about the
    rule, the practical effects, the economic effects.
        Mr. DeFazio. So they are forwarding questions back to you
    and asking----
        Ms. Quarterman. We have been meeting on not a daily basis,
    but I would say we have been meeting with them on a weekly
    basis with respect to this rule.
        Mr. DeFazio. So at this point if I wanted to express the
    urgency of getting a rule out, I should direct my attention to
    the OMB? OK. Thank you.
        One other question. I have sat on the committee for a
    number of years, and we have been through two reauthorizations
    since I have been here. And one particular concern in a number
    of incidents was distant capability of shutting off--automated
    capability of shutting off pipelines without having to dispatch
    someone to the site and having the time that elapses. We don't
    have a rule there. Is this just such a problematic technology,
    or are we making progress on this? Why aren't we there yet?
        Ms. Quarterman. We are making progress on this. It was one
    of the items within the Pipeline Safety Act.
        Mr. DeFazio. Uh-huh.
        Ms. Quarterman. We did two separate advance notices, one on
    hazardous liquid and one on gas transmission. Included in both
    of those were questions related to both leak detection and
    automated shut-off valves.
        There was a requirement with respect to both of those. We
    had to do an independent study. We have done that study, and we
    are in the process of drafting a rule to address those issues.
        Mr. DeFazio. OK. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman. My time has about expired.
        Mrs. Capito. Mr. Williams from Texas.
        Mr. Williams. Thank you, and thank all of you for being
    here today. We appreciate it very much.
        First of all, with full disclosure, I am from Texas, and we
    have--pipelines are important to us in Texas. They are
    important to us in my district, which has the Barnett shale and
    Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant. And I am a big private-
    sector guy, and I believe we have got too many Government
    regulations in our life.
        My first question is to you, Mr. Santa. I was hoping you
    could speak about how important regulatory certainty is for
    expanded demand in oil and gas needs between now and 2035.
        Mr. Santa. Thank you for the question, Mr. Williams.
        There is going to be a significant need for new midstream
    pipeline infrastructure in the United States between now and
    2035. As a matter of fact, the research arm of the INGAA
    Foundation recently released an update of its report on this,
    addressing the natural gas side of the equation. That report
    indicates the need for some 339,000 miles of midstream pipeline
    between 2014 and 2035.
        Admittedly, the bulk of that is going to be smaller
    diameter pipe primarily in connecting all of this new gas
    supply. There is also going to need to be almost 13 million
    horsepower of natural gas compression added during that period.
    And the total cost for this is going to be approximately $200
    billion.
        While the report covers about 20 years, the bulk of this is
    going to be needed over the next 5 to 10 years. The report also
    covers both crude oil and natural gas liquid infrastructure,
    where there also is going to be a significant demand for new
    midstream pipelines.
        So, yes, regulatory certainty will be important for us to
    move forward with that, although I would add to what my
    colleague said earlier. We do recognize the actions by
    Administrator Quarterman and her colleagues at PHMSA in terms
    of outreach with us working on things like the integrity
    verification process. So we appreciate their efforts.
        Mr. Williams. Another question to you. Are there any
    roadblocks that are keeping you from meeting the needs that you
    have? And can Congress do anything to help you?
        Mr. Santa. Overall the market works well. This is very much
    market driven. Also, on the interstate natural gas pipeline
    side, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission does a very good
    job.
        There are some issues associated with the host of permits
    that one must get in addition to a FERC certificate. These are
    often pursuant to other Federal laws and other Federal agencies
    and sometimes delegated to State agencies. Mr. Pompeo's bill,
    H.R. 1900, which was passed by the House late last year, if
    that were to be enacted into law, we think it would be a step
    in the right direction in terms of giving FERC some effective
    enforcement authority over those other agencies.
        Mr. Williams. Thank you.
        Mr. Weimer, a couple of quick questions for you. What I am
    going to ask you today are focused on the review approval and
    siting of new oil pipelines. And I know this topic is largely a
    State function and may be a little beyond this committee's
    jurisdiction. I would like to hear what you have to say about
    these questions.
        First of all, what is the Pipeline Safety Trust's view on
    the review, approval, and siting of new oil pipelines?
        Mr. Weimer. Well, I think to sum it up, it is kind of a
    mess in this country right now, because unlike natural gas
    pipelines where you have a FERC process for interstate natural
    gas pipelines, there is not one place that either the public,
    local governments, or the industry can go to to figure out how
    to put a liquid pipeline in the ground.
        If it crosses an international boundary, you get into the
    State Department, like we have with Keystone. If it doesn't do
    that, then it falls on State by State. Some States have siting
    authorities; some don't. If they don't, then it falls county to
    county or municipality to municipality. So it is a real
    patchwork of trying to put a new liquid pipeline in the ground.
        Mr. Williams. So I guess I would ask, does your
    organization support the current law letting States have
    jurisdiction over siting and review of new oil pipelines?
        Mr. Weimer. Yeah, we certainly do support that. In
    Washington State, where I am from, we have an energy facility
    siting evaluation committee that works very well for siting of
    those types of things.
        Mr. Williams. And would you also separate the process of
    new oil pipelines versus interstate natural gas transmission
    pipelines?
        Mr. Weimer. Well, I think there needs to be a new process,
    whether it falls under something like FERC for interstate
    natural gas, or whether it falls State by State or some other
    agency is looking at siting of oil pipelines. We just need a
    better process than what there is now.
        Mr. Williams. Do you believe there are benefits to the FERC
    approach?
        Mr. Weimer. I think there are. I think everybody knows
    upfront what they are doing. FERC has worked hard to make it a
    very upfront program where the public understands the process.
    That doesn't happen with liquid pipelines at this point. Often
    people are angry because they don't find out until too late in
    the process what is going on.
        Mr. Williams. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mrs. Capito. The gentleman yields back.
        We have had a request to open up for another quick round of
    second questions, particularly Ms. Hahn, who requested the
    hearing. I would just like to make a quick comment since I
    haven't really spoken yet.
        I am from West Virginia, and we had the pipeline explosion
    that went across our interstate there, and then I think it
    destroyed several properties. By the grace of God, there was
    nobody in those properties or nobody close by. It was a
    relatively--I don't want--it wasn't a new pipeline, but it
    wasn't exceedingly old either at the same time.
        And so going along the vein of Mr. Williams, we have
    Marcellus shale development in our State, and we are having
    massive pipeline construction, and we welcome it. It is a job
    creator, no doubt about it, and we want that.
        But, you know, I will say the investigation was very
    thorough in terms of what happened in West Virginia, and I hope
    we take lessons learned there. The shut-off valve was one of
    the issues that came up during the discussion and also the
    deterioration of the materials that were used at the time.
        So where you think it can't happen or won't happen, and
    this was just sort of a random place, it can happen any time at
    any place, I guess, without the great precautions. So I
    appreciate everything everybody here is doing to try to prevent
    that from happening anywhere else and to make sure that the
    lessons that we learn from unfortunate incidences like this we
    can use to perform, and be better, and be safer.
        And so with that, I will first go to the ranking member.
    She had one more question, so we will go to her first, and then
    we will go to you, Ms. Hahn.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I did not get a chance to do my opening statement, and I
    guess I do want to say that the Department of Transportation
    says that natural gas--pipelines is--the safest way to
    transport natural gas is through the pipelines. But in 2011
    alone pipeline incidents caused 14 fatalities. This compared to
    more than 32,000 on the highways, 557 on rail, 485 in aviation,
    and 106 in transit. With that said, the difference between
    pipelines and other transportation modes is that one single
    pipeline incident can cause all kinds of damages to the
    environment and property.
        We have seen several of these in recent times from the gulf
    coast to Michigan, California, New York, Montana and my home
    State of Florida. Many of these incidents formed the basis for
    the 2014 act, including requiring increased civil penalties,
    installing automatic shut-off valves and leak-defection systems
    in certain pipelines, inspection and repair requirements,
    increasing communication between pipeline operators and State
    and local emergency responders.
        With that said, in 2011, I fought to include a provision in
    the law that required the Secretary to make all document
    references and regulation available to the public free of
    charge. What is the status of this requirement, and has it been
    fully implemented, Ms. Quarterman?
        Ms. Quarterman. Yes. I am happy to report that the
    requirement that the documents that have been incorporated by
    reference, we have been able to put--we have reached an
    agreement with all except one of the standards agencies to put
    those items on the Internet for free. Subsequent to that
    legislation, there was an amendment of the legislation that
    expanded the deadline on that, I think. But we are making for
    that one standard body--we are ensuring that those standards
    are available here in Washington, DC, in our offices and
    elsewhere for folks to be able to come and look at them. But we
    have made great progress. Thank you.
        Ms. Brown. I am confused. You said they can come to
    Washington, DC, and take a look at them?
        Ms. Quarterman. Anyplace that we have an office and have
    the standards available, they can see them for this one
    particular association.
        Ms. Brown. But the others--well, who is this one that
    hasn't met this agreement?
        Ms. Quarterman. I don't remember off the top of my head,
    and I don't want to say the wrong name here. I will get back to
    you on that.
        [The information follows from Hon. Cynthia Quarterman,
    Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
    Administration:]

        American Society of Mechanical Engineers.

        Ms. Brown. I would like to know that name of that one group
    that has not agreed to it, because basically the local
    respondents need to know and be able to--they can't afford--
    each little community can't afford to purchase the regulations,
    and that is what we discussed, and it is a part of the law, and
    I really would like to know when the entire provision has been
    implemented.
        Also, I understand that there are more than 200,000 miles
    of U.S. lines that is unregulated. Can you explain why this is
    a major concern, and what is your recommendations what we need
    to do about it?
        Ms. Quarterman. I assume you are referring to gathering
    lines? There was a requirement in the act that we do a study on
    gathering lines, which we have drafted. It is in circulation,
    and we hope to get it to the committee very, very soon. We also
    have that in consideration in the pending rulemakings, how to
    deal with gathering.
        Ms. Brown. Would anyone else like to respond to that?
        Yes, sir?
        Mr. Weimer. Yes. The gathering line issue is one of our
    major issues. For instance, just a couple of years ago, there
    was 10,000 new miles of pipelines that went into the State of
    Pennsylvania; 9,200 of those miles were totally unregulated
    rural gathering lines that run past people's homes. While the
    Marcellus shale has been a great economic opportunity, it is
    also putting people at risk, and the regulations haven't kept
    up with that.
        Ms. Brown. So what is your recommendation?
        Mr. Weimer. Well, we feel that gathering lines that are the
    same size, diameter and same risk as the gas transmission lines
    ought to be regulated the same as gas transmission lines, and
    we are hoping that is what PHMSA is recommending as they come
    forward with the rulemaking.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you.
        Mrs. Capito. Ms. Hahn.
        Ms. Hahn. Thank you.
        I am still upset about what happened in my community of
    Wilmington, and while I appreciate my colleague who--the oil
    company in his community is handing out ball caps and
    refrigerator magnets, my community, the jackhammering
    afterwards to reach the pipeline and cap it caused driveways to
    be cracked, refrigerators to be ruined, grass to die. The whole
    neighborhood is ruined because of this company who failed to
    inspect their own pipeline and didn't even know that it was
    full of oil, or they were bypassing the process of abandoning
    it, and, again, it caused huge havoc in this community.
        I am going to introduce legislation that I think would help
    to close these loopholes and accomplish two goals. One, the
    first legislation would ensure that a company purchasing a
    pipeline actually does its due diligence, and it would be
    Federal law to know what the status is within 180 days of
    purchasing the pipeline and have that information available to
    the public.
        And the second, it would require that for a pipeline to be
    designated as abandoned, either PHMSA or the State authority
    would need to be present at the time of the inspection.
        And I am just going to ask you, Ms. Quarterman, what kind
    of resources would PHMSA need to accomplish these two goals?
        Ms. Quarterman. Well, the first half of that I don't think
    is a PHMSA resource question. The second half, in addition to
    the inspectors that PHMSA has, there are another 300
    inspectors, approximately, that are funded by States. I would
    have to go back and probably do an estimate of how many----
        Ms. Hahn. About how many pipelines are determined abandoned
    every year?
        Ms. Quarterman. I don't know the answer to that. We would
    have to do a calculation based on the number that are
    abandoned, unless one of the gentleman here could address that
    issue, and an estimate of how much time it would take us to do
    that.
        Ms. Hahn. Again, I am all for emergency response and
    awareness in the community, but I would like to prevent the
    ones that happened in Wilmington from ever happening.
        What kind of penalties or fines would this company be
    liable for in this recent incident?
        Ms. Quarterman. Each State adopts their civil penalty
    amounts. Ours are high. Not every State has the same level of
    civil penalties. One of our initiatives is to ensure that all
    States are increasing their civil penalties. I know California,
    at least on the gas pipeline side, has very high civil penalty
    authority. I am not sure what they have on the State side,
    though, in their law.
        Ms. Hahn. Would you be levying the fine, or is this just
    the State would be doing this?
        Ms. Quarterman. In this instance it was under the State's
    jurisdiction, so it would be the State levying the fine.
        Ms. Hahn. OK. Thank you.
        Would any of the rest of you like to comment on my proposed
    legislation?
        Mr. Santa. Ms. Hahn, for interstate natural gas pipelines,
    abandonment is required by the Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission. That is in part because when the pipe is put into
    service, it requires FERC approval; to take it out of service
    or convert it to another use, it requires FERC approval. There
    is a public record there. There is a public proceeding with
    notice. And also there are, as has been noted, PHMSA
    requirements on the gas side as well that apply to taking the
    pipeline out of service. So I think on the interstate gas
    pipeline side, I think we have got a pretty transparent and
    effective regime already.
        Mr. Pierson. In the hazardous liquids industry, a pipeline,
    if it is not flowing, is still regulated. And so if it is full
    and not flowing, it is still regulated and falls under the same
    regulatory regime.
        Ms. Hahn. But if it is not--if this company claimed it was
    empty and idle?
        Mr. Pierson. As Ms. Quarterman mentioned, there isn't
    necessarily a term of ``idled.''
        Ms. Hahn. Right.
        Mr. Pierson. And we would--if there is language or movement
    on that, we would be interested in seeing what PHMSA would
    propose on how to make----
        Ms. Hahn. When a company purchases a pipeline, would you be
    opposed to this idea that within 180 days, the information
    about what is in that pipeline ought to be available? This was
    a full pipeline.
        Mr. Pierson. Yes. I am not familiar with all the details of
    the incident that you are talking about, but if there were
    language out there and an area for improvement, we would listen
    and talk about it.
        Ms. Hahn. Thank you.
        Mr. Bradley?
        Mr. Bradley. Absolutely. On the distribution side we have a
    number of rules, distribution and transmission, for retiring
    pipeline, when we tie in brand-new pipeline and purge and clear
    out. If we hold natural gas pressure in that pipeline, we still
    treat it as requiring preventive maintenance inspections, if it
    is steel cathodic protection, et cetera. I don't see there
    being an issue with the rule that you are proposing.
        Ms. Hahn. I just want this sort of third-party verification
    for our communities. The honor system is great, but it failed
    us.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Mrs. Capito. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. Thank
    you.
        If there are no further questions, I would ask unanimous
    consent that the record of today's hearing remain open until
    such time as our witnesses have provided answers to any
    questions that may be submitted to them in writing, and
    unanimous consent that the record remain open for 15 days for
    any additional comments and information submitted by Members or
    witnesses to be included in the record of today's hearing.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        I would really like to thank our witnesses today, again,
    for your testimony.
        If no other Members have anything to add, the subcommittee
    stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:40 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]