    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

         LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO EXAMINE PIPELINE SAFETY REAUTHORIZATION

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

                                     HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 1, 2016

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-121

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                                   __________

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    20-150                         WASHINGTON : 2017

    _________________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              FRED UPTON, Michigan
                                     Chairman
    JOE BARTON, Texas                    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
      Chairman Emeritus                    Ranking Member
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky               BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  GENE GREEN, Texas
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            LOIS CAPPS, California
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
      Vice Chairman                      JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            JERRY McNERNEY, California
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              PETER WELCH, Vermont
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     PAUL TONKO, New York
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas                  JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                     Massachusetts
    RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina     TONY CARDENAS, California
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    BILL FLORES, Texas
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
                        Subcommittee on Energy and Power

                             ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
                                     Chairman
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               JERRY McNERNEY, California
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        PAUL TONKO, New York
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    GREGG HARPER, Vice Chairman          GENE GREEN, Texas
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     LOIS CAPPS, California
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas                  MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    BILL JOHNSON, Ohio                   PETER WELCH, Vermont
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
    RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina     DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    BILL FLORES, Texas                   FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma               officio)
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
    JOE BARTON, Texas
    FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement....................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     2
    Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Illinois, opening statement.................................     3
    Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, opening statement....................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     6
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     8

                                   Witnesses

    Marie Therese Dominguez, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous
      Materials Safety Administration................................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    11
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   162
    Norman J. Saari, Commissioner, Michigan Public Service Commission
      (on behalf of the National Association of Regulatory Utility
      Commissioners).................................................    51
        Prepared statement...........................................    53
    Ron Bradley, Vice President of Gas Operations, Peco Energy (on
      behalf of the American Gas Association)........................    72
        Prepared statement...........................................    74
    Andrew Black, President and CEO, Association of Oil Pipe Lines...   100
        Prepared statement...........................................   102
    Donald Santa, President and CEO, Interstate Natural Gas
      Association of America.........................................   111
        Prepared statement...........................................   113
    Carl Weimer, Executive Director, Pipeline Safety Trust...........   121
        Prepared statement...........................................   123
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   169

                               Submitted Material

    Letter of February 29, 2016, from Ms. Capps to the Pipeline and
      Hazardous Materials Safety Administration......................   151
    Statement of the American Public Gas Association.................   154

         LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO EXAMINE PIPELINE SAFETY REAUTHORIZATION

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2016

                      House of Representatives,
                      Subcommittee on Energy and Power,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
    room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Olson, Shimkus,
    Latta, Harper, McKinley, Griffith, Johnson, Long, Mullin,
    Hudson, Upton (ex officio), Rush, McNerney, Tonko, Capps,
    Doyle, Yarmuth, Loebsack, and Pallone (ex officio).
        Staff present: Gary Andres, Staff Director; Will Batson,
    Legislative Clerk, E&P, E&E; Leighton Brown, Deputy Press
    Secretary; Allison Busbee, Policy Coordinator, Energy & Power;
    Tom Hassenboehler, Chief Counsel, Energy & Power; A.T.
    Johnston, Senior Policy Advisor; Brandon Mooney, Prof. Staff
    Member, E&P; Annelise Rickert, Legislative Associate; Chris
    Sarley, Policy Coordinator, Environment & Economy; Dan
    Schneider, Press Secretary; Christine Brennan, Minority Press
    Secretary; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director; Rick Kessler,
    Minority Senior Advisor and Staff Director, Energy and
    Environment; John Marshall, Minority Policy Coordinator;
    Alexander Ratner, Minority Policy Analyst; Andrew Souvall,
    Minority Director of Communications, Outreach and Member
    Services; and Tuley Wright, Minority Energy and Environment
    Policy Advisor.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
               CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY

        Mr. Whitfield. Good morning and I would like to call our
    hearing to order this morning. And I would like to recognize
    myself for a 5 minute opening statement.
        First of all, I want to thank all of our witnesses today.
    We have two panels of witnesses and I certainly want to thank
    Administrator Dominguez for her constructive comments and her
    commitment to work with our committee.
        This morning we are going to be examining a discussion
    draft of a bill that reauthorizes the Pipeline and Hazardous
    Materials Safety Administration pipeline safety program. This
    discussion draft contains targeted mandates for PHMSA to
    increase transparency and accountability, complete overview
    regulations, and improve safety.
        I might say that working with the Transportation and
    Infrastructure Committee, the House successfully ushered
    through the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job
    Creation Act of 2011 on a bipartisan basis. Now it is time to
    update that law. With today's changing energy landscape and the
    need to modernize infrastructure greater than ever, we are
    looking forward to a productive discussion on our draft bill
    with a goal of reporting to the full House the legislation by
    this spring for its consideration. Our Senate colleagues, I
    might say, on the Commerce, Science and Transportation
    Committee reported S. 2276 the SAFE PIPES Act on December 9,
    2015, and we believe that a strong, bipartisan, bicameral
    effort will yield a public law we can all be proud of.
        I might say that I want to point out the unfinished
    business from the last reauthorization. The 2011 pipeline
    safety law included 42 mandates on PHMSA and 16 of them remain
    incomplete, well beyond the statutorily-imposed deadlines. So
    our discussion draft will require the Administrator to
    prioritize overdue regulations ahead of new rulemakings and
    keep us updated on that progress.
        So I really look forward to our discussion this morning.
    And at this point, I would like to yield the balance of my time
    to the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:]

                    Prepared statement of Hon. Ed Whitfield

        I am pleased that we are at the point of having a
    legislative hearing on pipeline safety reauthorization. I want
    to thank all of our witnesses for their time and thoughtful
    comments. In particular, I want to thank Administrator
    Dominguez for her constructive comments and her commitment to
    work with our committee.
        The Energy and Commerce Committee has been at the forefront
    of improving pipeline safety. Members today will examine a
    discussion draft of a bill that reauthorizes the Pipeline and
    Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) pipeline
    safety program. The discussion draft contains targeted mandates
    for PHMSA to increase transparency and accountability, complete
    overdue regulations, and improve safety.
        This committee has a proud, longstanding tradition of
    working together when it comes to pipeline safety. Together
    with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, the House
    successfully ushered through the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory
    Certainty and Job Creation Act of 2011 on a bipartisan basis.
    Now it's time to update that law. With today's changing energy
    landscape and the need to modernize infrastructure greater than
    ever, we are looking forward to a productive discussion on our
    draft bill that allows this committee to move expeditiously, so
    we can report a bill to the full House this spring for its
    consideration. Our Senate colleagues on the Commerce, Science
    and Transportation Committee reported S 2276, the Safe PIPES
    Act on December 9, 2015. We believe that a strong bipartisan-
    bicameral effort will yield a public law we can all be proud
    of.
        I do need to point out the unfinished business from the
    last reauthorization. The 2011 Pipeline Safety law included 42
    mandates of PHMSA and 16 of them remain incomplete well beyond
    the statutorily imposed deadlines. Our discussion draft
    requires the Administrator to prioritize overdue regulations
    ahead of new rulemakings and keep us updated on their progress.
    To make sure we are not being too rigid, exceptions are allowed
    when there is a significant need for a new regulation.
        Another provision of the draft bill that has received
    strong support is section 6, which would require the Secretary
    of Transportation, no later than 30 days after the completion
    of a pipeline inspection, to conduct a post-inspection briefing
    with the operator outlining any concerns. This provision will
    ensure that un-safe conditions are corrected as quickly as
    possible.
        The draft legislation before us today also contains
    requirements for new safety regulations relating to underground
    gas storage facilities and underwater hazardous liquid pipeline
    facilities and response plans.
        This is just a preview of some of the provisions reflected
    in the draft before us today. I look forward to a robust
    discussion about the lessons learned from the past and ways to
    prepare for the future.

        Mr. Olson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief.
    Pipeline safety is bipartisan. I am a pro-energy, pro-growth
    congressman from the pro-growth, pro-energy city of Houston,
    Texas. But growth only happens if the people trust us, if we
    get safety right.
        Industry does its best but government must do its part,
    too. Sensible rules need to be written and effectively
    enforced. Mistakes cost lives. Inaction costs lives. And that
    is why I would like to thank my friend and chairman for holding
    this hearing on a draft bill to reauthorize the Pipeline Safety
    Act. It is an important step forward. This bill includes some
    critical language on having safety inspectors that my good
    friend and fellow Texan, Gene Green, and I wrote with another
    Texan, Brian Babin and Janice Hahn, a Californian, who went to
    college in Amarillo and Abilene, Texas.
        This process for having inspectors at the federal level is
    slow and difficult. Let us cut the red tape, put inspectors on
    the ground. Let us get safety right. I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. This time I
    recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush, for his 5
    minute opening statement.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding
    this important and timely hearing today on pipeline safety
    reauthorization. I want to also welcome Administrator Dominguez
    to the subcommittee and thank her for being here.
        Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, it seems that every time we
    have a hearing on pipeline safety, we do so with a backdrop of
    either an ongoing spill or in the immediate aftermath of one.
    Of course, the most recent high-profile incident involved in
    2015 the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage field in Los Angeles
    where it is estimated that over 90,000 metric tons of methane
    escaped into the atmosphere and thousands of families have been
    impacted.
        Other high-profile leaks include the May 2015 crude oil
    spill from a pipeline operated by Plains All American Pipeline,
    along the Santa Barbara County coastline. Before that, there
    was a July 2010 Enbridge spill near Marshall, Michigan. And
    later, that same year in September, there was also the Pacific
    Gas and Electric Company natural gas explosion in San Bruno in
    the suburbs of San Francisco just to name a few.
        Mr. Chairman, we all know that pipelines are necessary and
    we must continue to build them to meet the energy needs of our
    nation. However, Mr. Chairman, we also know that many of the
    current pipelines are aging and they must be replaced, which
    may lead to additional problems if we keep kicking the
    proverbial can down the road.
        Mr. Chairman, we must ensure the American public that this
    subcommittee or jurisdiction is doing everything within our
    authority to ensure that more current and future pipelines are
    as safe as possible.
        In the past, the issue of pipeline safety has been one that
    we are working on in a bipartisan manner. And it is my hope and
    my expectation that we will continue to do so in the same
    tradition as we address this important issue in this current
    Congress.
        So again, Mr. Chairman, I applaud you and with that I yield
    the balance of my time to my wonderful colleague from great
    State of California, Ms. Capps.
        Ms. Capps. Thank you. I thank my ranking member for
    yielding and thank you Chairman Whitfield and Ranking Member
    Rush for holding this hearing, Chairman Upton and Ranking
    Member Pallone, for ensuring we consider pipeline safety in
    this committee.
        Welcome, Administrator Dominguez. Thank you for visiting my
    district recently.
        On May 19th, the Plains Pipeline 901 ruptured in my
    district, dumping over 120,000 gallons of crude oil along
    California's Gaviota Coast and into the ocean. This incident
    not only affected public health and the environment, but also
    our local economy that is strongly reliant on tourism, as well
    as the fishing and shrimping industries. While the May spill
    happened in my community, nearly all of us have miles, hundreds
    of miles of pipeline running through our districts, allowing
    for the transport of natural gas and hazardous liquids, like
    crude oil, across our country.
        So today's topic, pipeline safety, is incredibly important
    to each of us. That is why it is critical that our committee
    come together as it historically has to produce a strong
    bipartisan pipeline safety bill that builds on the lessons
    learned in the Plains spill, as well as incidents that have
    occurred across the country. I am hopeful we can again make
    this a strong bipartisan effort.
        Unfortunately, the draft language as currently written is
    inadequate in providing the much-needed updates to pipeline
    safety legislation to ensure the protection of our public
    health and the environment.
        Whether we are discussing the pipeline rupture in my
    district last May or the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage leak
    just to the south of my district, these incidents occur all too
    frequently. And each time a failure occurs, as it recently did
    in Chairman Upton's and Ranking Member Pallone's and my
    district, the need to act becomes even more clear. It is
    critical that we take the steps and the lessons from these
    incidents and use them to strengthen our pipeline safety
    infrastructure. For example, the spill in my district
    highlighted the inadequacies of the in-line inspection process
    currently used by PHMSA. Even with the shortened inspection
    interval, the Plains pipeline failed spilling crude across the
    landscape into the ocean.
        So we have many results of this survey and PHMSA has the
    authority and the resources to require an appropriate time line
    for inspections for every single pipeline in our country. We
    must ensure that the results from these surveys are made
    available to PHMSA and the public in a timely manner. We must
    strengthen the high consequence areas designation, something
    this draft falls short on. And there is room to strengthen
    these provisions in the draft before us. We must.
        We have this opportunity to improve the existing
    legislative requirements for pipeline safety. I ask that the
    chairman work closely with all of us to improve this bill.
    Thank you. And I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentlelady's time has expired. At this
    time, I recognize the chairman of the full committee, Mr.
    Upton, for 5 minutes.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Upton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me just respond
    to my friend, Ms. Capps. I look forward to working with you and
    your staff and we are continuing to do that.
        Pipeline safety is something that I take very seriously.
    And it has long been a priority for me as well as this
    committee. Spills, as we know, can be very disastrous and it is
    imperative that our laws stay up to date and work to minimize
    potential damage as well as try to prevent them from happening
    in the first place.
        In the wake of the serious oil spill that affected the
    Kalamazoo River, just outside of my district, I worked on a
    strong bipartisan basis with my friend, John Dingell, in
    conjunction with our friends on the Transportation and
    Infrastructure Committee to enact the Pipeline Safety,
    Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011. While the
    legislation's name might be hard to remember, its positive
    effects are not. This bipartisan bill, law, helps prevent
    pipeline failures, strengthens safety standards, and holds
    those responsible for pipeline accidents accountable.
        We cannot achieve the intended objectives of the Pipeline
    Safety Act until it has been fully implemented. The hearing
    last July revealed that PHMSA has failed to implement many of
    the mandates required by the law under the Pipeline Safety Act
    of 2011. Today, over 4 years after enactment, at least 16
    important safety regulations remain overdue. Rulemakings
    related to leak detection and emergency shutoff valves, public
    education and awareness, accident and incident notification are
    among some of the mandates PHMSA has failed to implement which
    would greatly improve pipeline safety.
        The discussion draft before us today, Pipeline Safety Act
    of 2016, is a starting point in reauthorizing the 2011 law. The
    draft seeks to increase regulatory transparency, speed the
    completion of overdue safety regs, tighten standards for
    underground natural gas storage facilities and underwater oil
    pipelines and reauthorizes PHMSA's pipeline safety programs.
    Taken together, I believe that the provisions included within
    the draft will go a long way towards improving pipeline safety,
    increasing the public confidence in our nation's energy
    infrastructure.
        And as we learned when examining the Kalamazoo spill, we
    needed to do a lot better job to improve pipeline safety. I
    think that we have made some progress with this draft and the
    draft bill is certainly an important step forward.
        One of the things that I initiated is a new provision
    requiring annual inspections that are fully transparent for
    some deep water crossings of existing pipelines. That is, in
    fact, Section 12 of the discussion draft would require annual
    inspections for deep underwater pipelines. A change in the law
    would mean that lines that cross under the Straits of Mackinac
    between the Upper and Lower Peninsula of Michigan would be
    required to be inspected every year, rather than every 5 years
    and those results made public.
        Though I may not be able to stay for the entire hearing
    this morning, I would appreciate your comments, maybe even in
    your opening statement, as to the support, hopeful support, of
    that provision as part of this bill.
        Feedback provided by our witnesses today will place us on a
    path towards enacting a bipartisan and meaningful
    reauthorization bill. I look forward to continuing with working
    with our colleagues on the Transportation and Infrastructure
    Committee, as well as our colleagues in the Senate, to get this
    bill done. And I yield back the balance of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton

        Pipeline safety is something I take very personally, and it
    has long been a priority for me, and this committee. Spills can
    prove disastrous, and it is imperative that our laws stay up to
    date and work to minimize potential damage, as well as try to
    prevent them from happening in the first place.
        In the wake of the serious oil spill that affected the
    Kalamazoo River in my district, I worked on a bipartisan basis
    with my friend John Dingell--and in conjunction with our
    friends on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee--to
    enact the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job
    Creation Act of 2011. While the legislation's name might be
    hard to remember, its positive effects are not. This bipartisan
    bill helps prevent pipeline failures, strengthens safety
    standards, and holds those responsible for pipeline accidents
    accountable.
        We cannot achieve the intended objectives of the Pipeline
    Safety Act until it has been fully implemented. A hearing last
    July revealed that the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
    Administration (PHMSA) has failed to implement many of the
    mandates required by law under the Pipeline Safety Act of 2011.
    Today, over 4 years after enactment, at least 16 important
    safety regulations remain overdue. Rulemakings related to leak
    detection and emergency shutoff valves, public education and
    awareness, and accident and incident notification are among
    some of the mandates PHMSA has failed to implement and which
    would greatly improve pipeline safety.
        The discussion draft before us today, the Pipeline Safety
    Act of 2016, is a starting point in reauthorizing the 2011 law.
    The draft seeks to increase regulatory transparency, speed the
    completion of overdue safety regulations, tighten standards for
    underground natural gas storage facilities and underwater oil
    pipelines, and reauthorize PHMSA's pipeline safety programs.
    Taken together, I believe the provisions included within the
    draft will go a long way toward improving pipeline safety
    increasing the public confidence in our nation's energy
    infrastructure.
        As we learned when examining the Kalamazoo spill, we needed
    to do a lot better job to improve pipeline safety. We have made
    progress, much work remains, and this draft bill is an
    important step forward.
        I'm hopeful the testimony and feedback provided by our
    witnesses today will place us on a path toward enacting a
    bipartisan and meaningful reauthorization bill. I also look
    forward to continue to working with our colleagues on the
    Transportation and Infrastructure Committee as we move ahead.

        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. At this time, I
    will recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, for
    5 minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Whitfield and Ranking
    Member Rush for holding this hearing on pipeline safety
    reauthorization and the discussion draft released by the
    committee last Friday. While I believe the draft could and
    should be much stronger, it is a good start and includes some
    important provisions on underground gas storage, pipeline
    safety, Technical Assistance Grants, and mandamus.
        The vast network of transmission pipelines in this country
    are essentially ``out of sight, out of mind'' for most
    Americans. But when something goes wrong, these facilities can
    make themselves known in devastating and sometimes deadly ways.
    Over the last year, we have witnessed both 100,000 gallon crude
    oil spill into pristine coastline in Representative Capps'
    district in California and a massive gas storage facility leak
    in Los Angeles. The leak forced thousands of people from their
    homes for long periods of time and released 96,000 metric tons
    of methane into the atmosphere, the climate-damaging equivalent
    of burning 900 million gallons of gasoline.
        My own district experienced the devastation of a pipeline
    failure in 1994 when a pipeline exploded in Edison, New Jersey,
    destroying about 300 homes. Yet, two decades and four
    reauthorizations later, the Department of Transportation's
    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, or
    PHMSA, has made little progress in my opinion in securing the
    safety of our nation's pipeline infrastructure.
        I hope that will soon change and I welcome the new
    Administrator Dominguez who I believe understands these
    concerns. It appears you and Secretary Fox are determined to
    bring positive change to this agency and I sincerely hope you
    succeed in your efforts to ensure the safety of our pipeline
    system. We look forward to helping you in any way that we can.
        The discussion draft before us is a modest, but balanced
    starting point for that effort. The draft contains language to
    address regulation of underground gas storage facilities like
    Aliso Canyon in California that leaked methane for 5 months
    until just a week ago. However, I don't believe that it goes
    far enough and I hope the committee will consider adopting the
    stronger language of H.R. 4578, authored by Representative Brad
    Sherman, who represents the residents around this facility and
    lives in the neighborhood that experienced the most direct
    adverse effects of the leak.
        I am encouraged that this draft includes language authored
    by Mr. Green that will allow us to finally begin a conversation
    about the need for PHMSA to have a direct power of authority.
    It is also critical that we provide the necessary tools--
    including funding--so the agency can attract the best and
    brightest inspectors and safety experts in order to carry out
    its responsibilities. We should also give the agency carefully
    crafted emergency order authority to ensure that PHMSA can
    address situations and facilities that pose a threat to life,
    property, and the environment. And we should remove barriers to
    PHMSA's success, such as the multiple layers of overly
    prescriptive risk assessment and cost benefit analysis that
    have hampered the agency's efforts to improve safety.
        Finally, I am pleased that the draft contains a provision
    restoring the ability of the public to compel PHMSA to perform
    its nondiscretionary obligations. This provision is necessary
    to address an incorrect reading of the 2002 reauthorization by
    the Ninth Circuit. While I have great respect for the courts,
    it is clear to me that the Ninth Circuit's reading of the
    Pipeline Safety Act with regard to mandamus was just plain
    wrong. The law always contemplated mandamus-type suits to
    ensure PHMSA does its job. The mandamus language added to the
    statute in 2002, as part of the whistleblower protection
    provision, was always intended to be in addition to what was
    already in the statute not in lieu of the existing language as
    the court incorrectly stated. At our hearing last year, we all
    voiced frustration at PHMSA's inaction on a number of fronts.
    While I know Administrator Dominguez is trying to change this
    situation, it is still important for the public to have the
    ability to access the courts to ensure PHMSA is keeping our
    pipeline system safe.
        And while I believe the discussion draft could be stronger,
    it is important to know that the last three pipeline safety and
    reauthorizations were truly bipartisan efforts that moved our
    nation forward on safety. Our committee has always produced the
    best and strongest pipeline safety legislation and I look
    forward to continuing to work with Chairman Upton, Chairman
    Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, Representative Capps, and
    colleagues on both sides of the aisle to produce truly
    meaningful legislation that protects lives, property, and the
    environment while providing more certainty and reducing
    unnecessary burdens on industry.
        So thank you again, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance
    of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

                 Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

        Thank you Chairman Whitfield and Ranking Member Rush for
    holding this hearing on pipeline safety reauthorization and the
    discussion draft released by the committee last Friday. While I
    believe the draft could and should be much stronger, it is a
    good start and includes some important provisions on
    underground gas storage, pipeline safety technical assistance
    grants and mandamus.
        The vast network of transmission pipelines in this country
    are essentially ``out of sight, out of mind'' for most
    Americans. But when something goes wrong, these facilities can
    make themselves known in devastating and sometimes deadly ways.
    Over the last year we've witnessed both a 100,000 gallon crude
    oil spill onto pristine coastline in Rep. Capps' district in
    California and a massive gas storage facility leak in Los
    Angeles. The leak forced thousands of people from their homes
    for long periods of time and released 96,000 metric tons of
    methane into the atmosphere--the climate damaging equivalent of
    burning 900 million gallons of gasoline.
        My own district experienced the devastation of a pipeline
    failure in 1994 when a pipeline exploded in Edison, New Jersey
    destroying about 300 homes. Yet, two decades and four
    reauthorizations later, the Department of Transportation's
    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration or PHMSA
    has made little progress in securing the safety of our nation's
    pipeline infrastructure.
        I hope that will soon change, and I welcome new
    Administrator Dominguez, who I believe understands these
    concerns. It appears you and Secretary Foxx are determined to
    bring positive change to this agency. I sincerely hope you
    succeed in your efforts to ensure the safety of our pipeline
    system and we look forward to helping you any way we can.
        The discussion draft before us is a modest, but balanced
    starting point for that effort. The draft contains language to
    address regulation of underground gas storage facilities like
    Aliso Canyon in California that leaked methane for 5 months
    until just a week ago. However, I don't believe that it goes
    far enough, and I hope the Committee will consider adopting the
    stronger language of H.R. 4578, authored by Rep. Brad Sherman
    who represents the residents around this facility and lives in
    the neighborhood that experienced the most direct adverse
    effects of the leak.
        I'm encouraged that this draft includes language authored
    by Mr. Green that will allow us to finally begin a conversation
    about the need for PHMSA to have direct hire authority. It's
    also critical that we provide the necessary tools--including
    funding--so the agency can attract the best and brightest
    inspectors and safety experts in order to carry out its
    responsibilities. We should also give the Agency carefully
    crafted emergency order authority to ensure that PHMSA can
    address situations and facilities that pose a threat to life,
    property, and the environment. And, we should remove barriers
    to PHMSA's success, such as the multiple layers of overly
    prescriptive risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis that
    have hampered the agency's efforts to improve safety.
        Finally, I'm pleased that the draft contains a provision
    restoring the ability of the public to compel PHMSA to perform
    its non-discretionary obligations. This provision is necessary
    to address an incorrect reading of the 2002 reauthorization by
    the Ninth Circuit. While I have a great respect for the courts,
    it's clear to me that the Ninth Circuit's reading of the
    Pipeline Safety Act with regard to mandamus was just plain
    wrong: the law always contemplated mandamus-type suits to
    ensure PHMSA does its job. The mandamus language added to the
    statute in 2002 as part of the whistleblower protection
    provision was always intended to be an addition to what was
    already in the statute, not in lieu of the existing language as
    the Court incorrectly stated. At our hearing last year, we all
    voiced frustration at PHMSA's inaction on a number of fronts.
    While I know Administrator Dominguez is trying to change this
    situation, it is still important for the public to have the
    ability to access the courts to ensure PHMSA is keeping our
    pipeline system safe.
        While I believe the discussion draft could be stronger,
    it's important to note that the last three pipeline safety
    reauthorizations were truly bipartisan efforts that moved our
    nation forward on safety. Our committee has always produced the
    best and strongest pipeline safety legislation. I look forward
    to continuing to work with Chairman Upton and Chairman
    Whitfield, Ranking Member Rush, Rep. Capps and colleagues on
    both sides of the aisle to produce truly meaningful legislation
    that protects lives, property and the environment while
    providing more certainty and reducing unnecessary burdens on
    industry.
        Thank you. I yield back the balance of my time.

        Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Pallone yields back the balance of his
    time, so that concludes the opening statements.
        And I would like to introduce our only witness on Panel 1
    this morning and that the Honorable Marie Therese Dominguez,
    who is the Administrator for the Pipeline and Hazardous
    Material Safety Administration at the U.S. Department of
    Transportation. She has had an illustrious career. She was the
    Assistant Secretary for Civil Works over at the Army Corps of
    Engineers, as well as other positions. We are delighted that
    you are here. We look forward to your testimony and the
    opportunity to ask questions. So you are recognized for 5
    minutes, Madam Administrator.

          STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARIE THERESE DOMINGUEZ,
        ADMINISTRATOR, PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SAFETY
                             ADMINISTRATION

        Ms. Dominguez. Thank you, sir. Good morning. Chairmen
    Upton, Whitfield, Ranking Members Pallone and Rush, and members
    of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify today
    on the reauthorization of the U.S. Department of
    Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
    Administration's pipeline safety program.
        PHMSA operates in a dynamic and challenging atmosphere. The
    demand for our work has increased as has the complexity and
    scope of our mission and responsibilities. The development of
    new energy resources, advancements in technology, and the use
    of hazardous materials in everyday products impact
    transportation safety.
        Recent incidents and increased public awareness and
    sensitivity to safety hazards and environmental consequences
    have resulted in increased scrutiny of the agency and it
    demands that we become proactive, innovative, and forward-
    looking in all that we do.
        Addressing the mandates in the Pipeline Safety Act of 2011
    is a priority of PHMSA. The Act included 42 new congressional
    mandates to advance PHMSA's safety mission and we have
    completed 26 of those mandates to date.
        Since I was appointed last summer, we have made progress in
    addressing four outstanding rulemakings, including publishing a
    final rule on pipeline damage prevention programs and proposed
    rulemakings on expanding the use of excess flow valves in
    distribution pipelines, as well as operator qualification, cost
    recovery, and accident notification, and a significant rule
    addressing safety of hazardous liquid pipelines.
        We are currently and actually, I just got news this
    morning, that OMB has completed its review and we are planning
    on publishing within the next couple of weeks gas transmission,
    the gas transmission rule which has been outstanding.
        Congress has made investments in PHMSA, providing 100 new
    positions for the pipeline safety program in the last year. And
    we have filled over 91 percent of these positions.
        Moving forward, we must continue to utilize the investments
    Congress has provided wisely. Over the past 6 months, I have
    worked to better understand PHMSA's strengths, capability gaps,
    and areas for improvement. We have undertaken an organizational
    assessment that evaluated the agency's structure and processes.
    This assessment provided PHMSA's leadership team deeper insight
    into an organization where safety is a personal value for all
    of our talented and dedicated employees. And it also
    highlighted critical investment areas.
        As a result, PHMSA has updated its strategic framework,
    recognizing the need to improve our capacity to leverage data
    and economic analysis, to promote continuous improvement in
    safety performance through the establishment of safety-
    management systems, both within the agency and across the
    industry, and by creating a division that will support
    consistency in mission execution. This new framework called
    PHMSA 2021 was directly informed by PHMSA employees and will
    allow us to be more predictive, consistent, and responsive as
    we fulfill our mission in protecting people and the environment
    by advancing the safe transportation of energy and other
    hazardous materials that are essential to the daily lives of
    all Americans.
        PHMSA 2021 will allow us to better prioritize our work and
    be proactive in informing, planning, and execution. It will
    also allow us to be more predictive in our efforts to mitigate
    future safety issues and to implement data-driven, risk-based
    inspections, leading our regulated communities in a direction
    that powers our economy, cultivates innovation, and prioritizes
    safety.
        Thank you for continuing to invest in PHMSA. I look forward
    to continuing to work with the Congress to reauthorize PHMSA's
    pipeline safety program and I would be pleased to answer any
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Dominguez follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Whitfield. Well, thank you, Administrator Dominguez,
    and I recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions.
        In your opening statement you made reference to the gas
    transmission regulation. Is that proposed at this point? You
    all are not getting ready to finalize that.
        Ms. Dominguez. It is a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK. And that was one of the----
        Ms. Dominguez. That is one of the outstanding mandates.
        Mr. Whitfield. And how many outstanding mandates are there
    right now?
        Ms. Dominguez. Right now there are 16. If we address the
    gas transmission rule that addresses several different sections
    of the Pipeline Act of 2011. And as I said, that will be
    addressed in the coming weeks.
        Mr. Whitfield. Right. Well, we appreciate that. You came to
    PHMSA, you had not been involved in PHMSA before. You were
    appointed to this position, I guess. You took over, was it in
    August?
        Ms. Dominguez. I was confirmed in August of last year.
        Mr. Whitfield. Yes. If you were speaking to the Rotary Club
    in rural Kentucky, for example, and you were talking about
    safety of our national pipelines, how would you characterize it
    to a layman today, our system here in the U.S.?
        Ms. Dominguez. Well, having worked at PHMSA, I can tell you
    that first and foremost the employees of PHMSA are incredibly
    dedicated to our safety mission. And the safety mission
    encompasses hazardous materials and pipelines. And I can tell
    you that that level of dedication extends across the board to
    every aspect of our rulemaking, our inspection process, and our
    enforcement regime that we undertake as an agency. Pipelines is
    one aspect of that. It is a mode of transportation for
    hazardous materials that we regulate. We take our mission very
    seriously and look to make sure that we are continuously
    working to improve that framework for safety.
        Mr. Whitfield. Now I think the pipeline industry safety
    record is generally improving, but concerns have been expressed
    about a series of accidents. You think overall we are doing
    better, right? Or are you concerned about overall--some of
    these pipelines are pretty old. Some of the improvements that
    need to be made have been delayed because of the uncertainty
    about regulations and so forth. Do you think that the fact that
    these mandates have not been completed yet, is that
    contributing in a significant way to increased safety issues in
    your view or not?
        Ms. Dominguez. I think we have opportunity, given the 2011
    requirements to continue to enhance safety. I think in
    particular the two rules that we have been working on most
    aggressively in the last 6 months certainly that I have
    personally engaged on are first the hazardous liquid rule, and
    second, this gas transmission rule. Both of those were
    requirements from the 2011 act and are very significant to
    actually improving the safety of both gas and liquid
    transmission. And they expand some of the requirements that
    will certainly enhance safety and we believe lead to greater
    protections across the board for people and the environment.
        Mr. Whitfield. Section 15 of our discussion draft is in
    parentheses, and it would allow a private individual to file a
    lawsuit against PHMSA for failure to perform a non-
    discretionary duty. Have you or has PHMSA taken a position on
    that particular part of this draft?
        Ms. Dominguez. We have had a chance to review the language
    that was published by the committee. I would be happy to work
    with the committee moving forward on how to best frame that
    provision, that particular provision. But obviously, there are
    provisions for citizens to have the right to sue, whether it is
    the Federal Government or private entities.
        Mr. Whitfield. They can sue you already as a matter of
    fact.
        Ms. Dominguez. Yes.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK. I will yield back the balance of my
    time. Thank you very much. I recognize Mr. Rush for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator Dominguez, last week we had a very
    informative and inspirational meeting in my office. We briefly
    discussed the process for hiring talent for PHMSA, the
    challenges that PHMSA faced when competing against the private
    sector, and I think that some of your insights need to be
    shared with the members of this subcommittee regarding some of
    the challenges and some of the possible remedies to help the
    agency attract top candidates to help you accomplish and
    achieve your mission.
        And in your comments, would you include your thoughts about
    Mr. Green's proposal and whether or not this speaks towards the
    issue? Give us some insight into your challenges?
        Ms. Dominguez. Thank you, sir. I believe you are referring
    to the ability for PHMSA to do direct hire. And the committee
    is certainly taking that up in their draft legislation. And I
    very much appreciate it.
        The Congress has been incredibly generous in providing
    funds to PHMSA. Over the last year alone we were provided 122
    new positions to the agency. One hundred nine of those
    positions went directly to the pipeline safety program. And we
    have been working diligently to try and fill those as quickly
    as possible. We are at about a 91 percent fill rate right now.
    But I will tell you that it is difficult to compete against the
    private sector in particular. Everyone is going after great
    talent in this country and the provision that has been provided
    on direct hire authority would greatly assist us regardless of
    what the market is in making sure that we can bring on folks in
    a timely way. And the federal process is such that direct hire
    authority would definitely assist us in making sure that we are
    able to access the folks with the talent and skills to work in
    these critical jobs.
        Mr. Rush. And so let me move on to another matter. What
    role should Congress play in helping to address the issue of
    replacing the nation's aging pipeline infrastructure? As you
    know, at one point during the negotiations of the larger energy
    bill last year, this subcommittee discussed the idea of
    creating a grant program to help mitigate the cost of replacing
    these aging pipelines for low-income families. Unfortunately,
    that program was scrapped.
        What do you believe is the proper role that Congress should
    play in this debate? Should the role of Congress be one of
    providing for national support, offering guidance, lessening
    minimal safety standards or something else entirely?
        Ms. Dominguez. I believe that the role of the Congress is
    to make sure that we provide the most stringent opportunity for
    safety in the pipeline area. And so the TAG grants that you are
    referring to, the Technical Assistance Grants that the states
    have offered are truly valuable investments to local
    communities. And they have helped educate communities on safety
    pipeline issues. They have helped emergency responders across
    the board. And PHMSA, I believe, has employed some very good
    internal controls on how we actually use those programs we have
    reviewed and our processes are such that how we award them and
    how they are actually administered is a good way forward. So we
    appreciated the provisions that were provided and they have
    clearly done good work in communities.
        Mr. Rush. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the
    chair recognizes the chair, Mr. Upton.
        Mr. Olson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Olson. I thank the chair. Welcome, Administrator
    Dominguez. I would like to talk about staffing at PHMSA, where
    are we now, where you would like to go, and how can DHA help?
    Following up on a lot of questions from Ranking Member Rush.
        In your testimony, you mentioned that direct hire authority
    would cut hiring time from 100 days to 30 days, a 70 percent
    reduction by the math. As I mentioned in my opening statement,
    Gene Green and I have a bipartisan bill to give PHMSA, you, DHA
    authority for a few years as you work through the new
    regulations.
        Obviously, hiring only matters if you get those inspectors
    in the field. Would you please talk about how PHMSA is
    improving training for inspectors?
        Ms. Dominguez. Thank you for the question. We have, as I
    noted, we have been aggressively hiring and the opportunity
    right now, we have been able to fill about 91 percent of our
    positions. That said, as we bring people on board, we have a
    very rigorous training program that we have rehabbed and
    literally put in place. It is a boot camp of sorts, not only
    just for our new inspectors, but the states are also doing a
    lot of hiring as well. And the state inspectors are also
    participating in this training. It is being conducted at our
    Training and Qualifications Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
    We just hired a new director over the course of the last 6
    months. He comes with a great deal of experience in this field.
    And as inspectors are deployed, they will have some of the
    latest and greatest tools at their dispense to use.
        Mr. Olson. And that's important. Thank you, ma'am. About
    Section 2 and Section 3 of the discussion draft. They require
    PHMSA to keep Congress and the public informed of the status of
    overdue rules and tackle them before beginning new rulemakings.
    Do you agree that this is a sensible and achievable requirement
    and any concerns about pressure points where you might feel
    some pressure to comply with these ideas, these new policies?
        Ms. Dominguez. As I noted in my opening statement, the
    prioritization of the 2011 mandates is something we take
    extremely seriously at PHMSA and completing those mandates is
    truly a priority. That said, there is always emerging risk that
    needs to be addressed. And so I appreciate the opportunity to
    work with the Congress to complete the mandates, but we also
    need to be in a position to address any emerging risk as it
    does appear.
        Mr. Olson. So it sounds like the 2011 mandates are pressure
    points. Any other pressure points you are concerned about going
    forward with keeping Congress and the public informed, more
    personnel, just whatever? I mean how can we make sure you do
    your job and the people back home know that this is safe?
        Ms. Dominguez. Well, I thank you for the investment that
    has been made by the Congress thus far. We are going to
    continue to make sure that we are using those resources wisely.
    Part of what we are doing is making sure that we are
    structuring the agency for that level of success as well. And
    some of the investment is to actually make sure that we are
    creating opportunities inside the agency to be more forward
    looking, proactive, data-driven, and improve our economic
    analysis and data analysis so that our rulemaking is as strong
    as it possibly can be and meet the requirements.
        Mr. Olson. And one final question. This is on Section 6 of
    the discussion draft that requires PHMSA to conduct timely
    post-inspection briefings with operators of pipelines. If there
    is a safety hazard, the operator needs to know so they can fix
    it immediately. Would PHMSA have an issue complying with this
    section going forward to any issues with PHMSA?
        Ms. Dominguez. I am terribly sorry, sir. Can you repeat the
    question, please?
        Mr. Olson. Yes, ma'am. Section 6 of the discussion draft
    requires PHMSA to conduct timely post-inspection briefings of
    the operators of pipelines. If there is a safety hazard that
    the operator needs to know so they can fix it immediately, how
    does that knowledge get to the operator? That is what I am
    saying. Can you take that mandate? Can you roll with that or do
    you need more help or something because these people need to
    have that information if they don't have it.
        Ms. Dominguez. So we take our inspection process very
    seriously. And one of the things that is presently part of our
    requirement for all inspectors is to make sure that they
    conduct an exit interview in a timely way. Right now, it is a
    30-day window for inspectors to complete their exit interview
    process. Moving forward, oftentimes it does take more time to
    develop any sort of enforcement requirements, whether that be a
    notice of proposed violation or other compliance measures that
    might be needed. So it is a very thoughtful process taking in
    all the data, assessing it, making sure. But I do appreciate
    the need to communicate with the operator and we continue to do
    that.
        So I will say that meeting that 30-day window of our
    initial findings is something that we are looking to do more
    consistently across the board, but it is a requirement right
    now within PHMSA. And then moving forward, as we develop those
    recommendations and any kind of violation orders or anything
    else, we do take those very seriously and they are a very
    thoughtful process.
        Mr. Olson. Thank you very much. I am out of time. I yield
    back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. At this time, I
    recognize the gentleman from--I was going to say New Jersey,
    but I will say California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McNerney. I thank the chairman. We are a long way from
    New Jersey. But we have had three high-profile failures in
    California over the last several years, so my first question,
    Administrator Dominguez, is do you feel that the states should
    have the option of requiring measures like shut-off valves,
    pressure monitors, testing of down-hole devices, if the federal
    regulators fail to do so?
        Ms. Dominguez. Thank you for the question. The way the
    process works right now and what Congress has mandated is that
    the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
    PHMSA, sets the minimum federal requirements across the board
    for all the states. The states are then allowed to go above and
    beyond those requirements and any given state can choose to do
    so regardless of what the requirement is.
        Mr. McNerney. So your requirements should be seen as
    floors, not ceilings?
        Ms. Dominguez. Correct.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Will the draft legislation help
    PHMSA prevent these and other failures, so the legislation that
    we are talking about, or are there holes in the legislation
    that you think need to be filled in?
        Ms. Dominguez. Our requirements look to create what we
    believe to be the safety measure that needs to be put in place.
    And again, if states choose to do more and put in place more
    stringent requirements they are able to do so.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I mean the current legislation we are
    talking about today----
        Ms. Dominguez. Yes.
        Mr. McNerney. Are there things that you think should be
    added or subtracted from that that you would like to discuss?
        Ms. Dominguez. We have put forward a series of principles
    that I think address any additional requirements. We are
    looking in particular at other ways that we can enhance our
    enforcement capabilities.
        Mr. McNerney. So you don't want to advise us here today?
        Ms. Dominguez. The one thing that will say that is in my
    testimony is to look for additional opportunities to level
    emergency order authority, an ability that other federal
    agencies have and actually our hazardous material program has
    which is also under PHMSA's authority.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Let us talk about smart pigs
    versus direct assessment. My understanding is that if smart
    pigs could have been used in one of the high-profile failures
    in California, it would have prevented that, but they weren't
    able to be used because the pipelines were so old. Is that a
    common problem that smart pigs can't be used throughout the
    country because of aging pipelines?
        Ms. Dominguez. We do have an aging infrastructure system in
    this country and one of the things that we have looked to
    address across the board is really encouraging. We have done a
    call to action over the course of the last 5 years in
    encouraging states. About 37 states have actually addressed
    this by looking to incent and providing opportunities to
    replace aging pipes around the country. That said, there is
    still more work to be done and how to pay for that is a
    difficult proposition.
        We are working directly with states and the industry to
    continue to encourage that replacement of pipe and as you look
    at different opportunities on the inspection process,
    regardless of the tool that you use, you need to make sure that
    you use the right tool to address the pipe that you are
    actually trying to assess so that it not only protects the
    integrity of the pipe, but you actually get the analysis that
    you are looking for.
        Mr. McNerney. Is there any technology on the horizon that
    will improve that capability?
        Ms. Dominguez. We are constantly looking to invest in
    research and development. It is a big part of our program, R&D,
    to look to identify emerging technologies. The research that
    PHMSA has done to date is to identify 26 new technologies
    including sonar-related pigging capabilities. So it is a good
    investment.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, let us talk about substandard steel. Is
    this is an on-going problem or has that been resolved and new
    pipelines that go into use are up to standard steel?
        Ms. Dominguez. I believe that PHMSA has addressed
    substandard steel in a variety of advisory bulletins and other
    things for the operators that have substandard steel to replace
    it.
        Mr. McNerney. Do you believe that the industry consensus
    standards often reflect the best practices or do they reflect
    something a little less capable than the best practices?
        Ms. Dominguez. Consensus standards are a very good way to
    actually identify opportunities to work together both with
    states, the Federal Government, and the operators, to develop a
    set of requirements that the industry can then apply, both by
    executive order and by congressional action. Adoption of
    consensus standards is a way forward in lieu of rulemaking.
    That said, rulemaking in and of itself provides a very strong
    basis for actually implementing the safety measures.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I haven't run out of
    questions, but I have run out of time.
        Mr. Whitfield. Yes, you have. Thank you. At this time, I
    will recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Administrator,
    thanks very much for being here today.
        The recently proposed rulemaking addresses hazardous liquid
    pipeline shows some incremental progress to address safety.
    However, there are overdue regulations and I think you said
    that of the 42 you have addressed 26 and we have 16 to go. But
    when you are looking at some of these overdue regulations
    relating to leak detection and emergency shutoff valves,
    integrity management of natural gas pipelines, public education
    and awareness efforts, and accident and incident notification,
    do you know when we can expect some of these rules to be
    published?
        Ms. Dominguez. Well, thank you for the question. We have
    addressed two major rulemakings, well, four in the last 6
    months. But we are looking at--we published a Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking for hazardous liquids last October. It was
    a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that went out. We are working
    to finalize that rule right now. We collected comments. Our
    advisory committee met and we are working to finalize that
    rule. We hope to have it out this year.
        As I noted, we have received confirmation that the Office
    of Management and Budget has completed its review of our gas
    transmission line as of this morning and we will be looking to
    publish that as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking over the course
    of the next couple of weeks. That will be available publicly
    and then we will work to complete that rule as well.
        Mr. Latta. OK, so that timeline you say is going to be in
    the next, what, 3 weeks on the last one you said?
        Ms. Dominguez. On gas transmission?
        Mr. Latta. Right.
        Ms. Dominguez. As soon as we are able to, we will publish
    it, so hopefully some time, no later than the next 2 weeks.
        Mr. Latta. So just in the meantime though will PHMSA also
    commit to sharing a time line or the schedule for that
    completion then? So you are going to have that out? Is that
    correct?
        Ms. Dominguez. Is that a question for the gas transmission
    rule
        Mr. Latta. I beg your pardon?
        Ms. Dominguez. I am sorry, can you repeat the question?
        Mr. Latta. That you will commit to sharing that time line,
    if it is 3 weeks for the one, but for the others, will you
    commit to a timeline in getting that out?
        Ms. Dominguez. Yes. And actually, we do publish on our Web
    site the status of all of the requirements that are available
    and we update it regularly.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. And what, if anything, has PHMSA done
    since creating the 811 Dial Before You Dig program to
    incorporate new technologies or best practices to improve
    communication between the stakeholders for receipt of an
    excavation notification until the successful completion of the
    excavation as recommended by PHMSA's nine elements of effective
    damage prevention programs?
        Ms. Dominguez. Damage prevention is one of the leading
    causes of serious death and injury related to--it is one of the
    leading causes of pipeline incidents. And so we have invested
    an enormous amount of time and energy and resources to making
    sure that we are not only partnering with the states and the
    operators, but we are also working with common ground alliance
    to make sure that there is awareness across the board of these
    risks and making sure there are one-call centers available in
    states.
        There are some states that have not adopted one-call
    provisions. We are working with them right now. 811, it is
    proven the metrics are there, that if you actually call before
    you dig the risk is almost eliminated of excavation damage. So
    there is huge value in making sure that those excavation rules
    are abided by and adopted.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. And finally, with my last minute
    here, how do pipeline operators use the in-line inspection or
    so-called smart pig technology to find problems in their
    pipelines?
         And then also, how accurate is the smart pig technology of
    finding cracks and other potential issues with the pipeline?
        Ms. Dominguez. So as part of our requirements, we look to
    make sure that the integrity of any particular pipeline is
    assessed and we put the onus on the operators to actually
    assess their own pipelines. And we set the requirements for
    what they need to look at, how they need to look at it,
    etcetera, and interpret that data. And then we go and inspect
    to make sure that they are actually complying with the
    requirements that we put forward.
        The in-line inspection tools that are available are
    constantly advancing. And as we look to advance that
    technology, we will have more data that is available to
    actually understand the exact operation of any given pipeline,
    assess it, and make sure that the operator is actually doing
    what they need to do to improve and enhance safety.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. And Mr. Chairman, it looks like my
    time has expired. I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the
    chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Capps, for
    5 minutes.
        Ms. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you again,
    Administrator Dominguez, and your team for visiting the Gaviota
    Coast in my district and for appearing here today.
        As you may know, I sent a letter to your office yesterday
    with many of the questions that continue to arise in the
    aftermath of the Plains oil spill and I ask unanimous consent
    to enter that letter into the records here which I have done.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Ms. Capps. But today, I will try to narrow my questioning
    to a few of the still-pressing issues as the central coast of
    California recovers from the Plains spill with the goal that
    the answers will help make the legislation before us today as
    strong as possible
        As I said, the safety of our nation's pipeline
    infrastructure is critically important to protect public health
    and the environment and our local economies. I have several
    questions for you and so the briefer you can be in replying
    today, but longer answers could be submitted if you wish.
        You mentioned in your testimony, Administrator, that PHMSA
    is working to tailor inspection requirements to the risk
    profile of the pipeline operator. In the preliminary findings
    regarding the Plains spill last May, past in-line inspection
    surveys used to assess the condition of the pipeline showed an
    increasing number of anomalies between surveys. All the while,
    Plains opted to decrease the inspection intervals between
    surveys voluntarily. Does PHMSA currently have the authority to
    mandate increased frequency of inspections for individual
    pipelines?
        And other than the prescribed frequency for pipelines
    within the high-consequence areas, are there any established
    triggers that impact required frequency? For example, would a
    history of increasing anomalies discovered during sequential
    inspections, as was the case with this pipeline, would this
    automatically trigger a requirement for more frequent
    inspections? I am sorry, that is a mouthful.
        Ms. Dominguez. We do have the authority necessary to look
    at the requirements for frequency of assessing any pipeline.
    And that is what we do. What we need to look at in particular
    with the Plains accident is to understand and we are looking at
    this as part of our final investigative report. As you know,
    first and foremost, thank you again for the opportunity to be
    in Santa Barbara with you and release our preliminary factual
    report----
        Ms. Capps. Right.
        Ms. Dominguez [continuing]. Which identified a number of
    these issues and the facts surrounding the Plains case. That
    said, we are still conducting the investigation. As a result of
    that, if there is additional corrective actions that need to be
    taken, including anything having to do with an inspection
    capability, we will certainly look at that as part of our
    recommendation.
        Ms. Capps. OK, I hope this will be something that the
    proposed emergency order that you described would be used for,
    but I am going to turn now to the second question that I have.
        The draft legislation would mandate that all response plans
    include procedures and a list of resources for responding to
    worst-case scenarios. Here is my question. How frequently are
    pipeline operators required to update response plans? Are
    operators required to provide interim confirmation that a plan
    is up to date between reviews? And how does PHMSA ensure that
    plans are up to date? Again, that is a lot to ask.
        Ms. Dominguez. Thank you for the question. We review
    facility response plans for completeness and accuracy. If
    anything changes, the operator needs to send it back to us. We
    look at it again. We want to make sure that the operator has
    actually considered all the risks and resources that are
    available in accordance with our federal regulations. If they
    are not complete, we send them back to the operator and they
    must update them. And that is the procedure that we presently
    use with Facility Response Plans.
        Ms. Capps. Thank you. I have one final question which,
    again I am running short on time, but given the tremendous
    damage that can be done to coastal areas, wherever they are,
    Great Lakes, the East Coast, West Coast, are these coastal
    areas that act as the transition from the land to the ocean--
    which is where the spill happened on our Gaviota coastline, the
    pipeline ran along the inland and found a culvert and ended up
    despoiling the ocean beneath it. Would it make sense to also
    increase the frequency of inspections to include these high-
    consequence areas?
        Can you tell me how many pipelines or is there a way to get
    that on the record, how many pipelines actually exist in these
    coastal areas?
        Ms. Dominguez. I would have to get back to you for the
    record on the mileage with regard to pipelines along a coastal
    area. But I will tell you that our rulemaking is such that for
    hazardous liquids, we look to make sure that any area that we
    are providing the safest requirements possible for hazardous
    liquids and our gas transmission rule that we are looking at
    right now, we are looking to expand the definition of a high-
    consequence area. So we will also expand that coverage as part
    of the gas transmission rule.
        Ms. Capps. I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentlelady yields back. At this time I
    recognize the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Dominguez, since the law was passed in 2011, 5 years
    ago, everything I have read has indicated that the rate of
    accidents, ruptures, leaks, explosions, has not decreased. Do
    you have something to the contrary over the last 5 years of
    whether we are making progress?
        Ms. Dominguez. I believe that safety is a process of
    continuous----
        Mr. McKinley. Can you speak a little closer? I am very hard
    of hearing.
        Ms. Dominguez. Sure. I believe that safety is a process of
    continuous improvement. So as we have transitioned in this
    country to a very robust energy environment, it has been a very
    dynamic energy environment certainly the last decade, we are
    looking to make sure that all of our safety requirements are
    as----
        Mr. McKinley. I know that. I understand. It is why you got
    this job, apparently. You didn't have a lot of background in
    hazardous material, but you did have a good background in
    communicative and political skills. So I am just trying to ask
    a direct question.
        Everything I have read is that the rate of accidents are
    not decreasing and in many respects actually increasing since
    pipeline safety went into effect. So I know your mission. You
    want to achieve that, but from what we have read--that is why I
    was asking you. Do you have evidence that ever since the
    pipeline safety that it has been an effective tool that you
    have actually been able to reduce it? Because coming from where
    we are in eastern Ohio, western Pennsylvania and all of West
    Virginia, we have a rush of pipelines, and as I said last year
    to your predecessor, virtually every month there is an
    accident, a flame, some rupture, some leak, something happening
    that we weren't experiencing before. So I am trying to find a
    way to get some sense of confidence for the American public
    that our pipeline program is worth the investment and the time
    to do that.
        So again, let me try it again with you. Do you have
    evidence that our pipeline accident rates are decreasing or
    stay status quo?
        Ms. Dominguez. I would say that you should have every
    confidence that not only is PHMSA robustly addressing our
    mission on pipeline safety, that we have a level of dedication
    to make sure that that actually takes place and that the
    accidents that we are looking at we are learning from and
    making sure that we have--whether it is Santa Barbara----
        Mr. McKinley. Can you get back to me then? I am sorry if I
    am putting you on the spot. You are trying to play politics. I
    don't want to play. I just wanted some facts. Are we increasing
    or decreasing? I would appreciate that.
        The other is the lack of not having completed--I think last
    year we had 16 or 17 weren't completed, and then your statement
    you said 16 aren't completed. I am missing something. Why
    aren't they finished? If there was a law passed, is this part
    of the administration to say we are just not going to do it? We
    are not going to enforce the law?
        Ms. Dominguez. So in the last 6 months, we have moved
    forward on four and now five of the requirements from the 2011
    Act. So we are moving as aggressively as we possibly can. It
    has been a priority for the agency to address these 2011
    mandates and I can tell you that our focus is very laser-like
    on making sure that these requirements are met.
        That said, the rulemaking process is one that is intended
    to be thoughtful and methodical and it takes time. So I am not
    using that as----
        Mr. McKinley. Well, you had 5 years to do that. I would
    think if you were industry, I think you probably would have
    been fined by now. If you were an industry and violated the
    law. So I will be curious to see what the consequences are in
    finishing. I think your answer earlier was you were going to
    get back to us with some of the answers or what the deadline
    might be, your time line in getting those. I would sure like to
    see that as well.
        But the bottom line here is we have so much pipeline being
    constructed in West Virginia for the Marcellus and the Utica,
    that if we took a poll right now I am afraid a lot of the
    residents would turn on the pipeline because they see so many
    problems associated with it. So I am trying to get the
    confidence. If we are going to be energy independent and we are
    going to be able to tap into this for our energy sources in the
    future, they have got to have confidence with that farmer, if
    there is going to be a 42-inch pipeline across his field, that
    he doesn't have to worry about it. And right now, I don't think
    the American public has confidence in government now as giving
    us that assurance. So I really hope that you can finish your
    work that you were charged to do 5 years ago and get this thing
    at a point we can see a marked decrease in the amount of
    accidents across this country.
        Ms. Dominguez. Thank you. And I will tell you that not only
    are we working diligently to complete the mandates that
    Congress has provided, but we are also looking to enhance our
    safety performance by employing safety management systems which
    will raise the bar not only for PHMSA, but more importantly for
    the industries that we regulate to make sure that we are
    identifying and addressing all of the emerging risk, analyzing
    data, and truly informing that risk model moving forward. So
    safety management systems are really that next level of
    improvement on safety. And that is something that I am
    personally committed to, the agency is personally committed to,
    and I know we are working aggressively with all involved to get
    there.
        Mr. McKinley. My time has expired.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time has expired. At this
    time I will recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr.
    Doyle, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to
    thank you for holding this hearing today and to thank our
    witnesses for testifying.
        I am glad we are considering this important reauthorization
    legislation and I think the discussion draft under
    consideration represents a good first step in the process.
        Administrator Dominguez, I am concerned that PHMSA is still
    far from completing mandates instituted under the Pipeline
    Safety Act of 2011. Overdue regulations include those related
    to leak detection and emergency shutoff valves, as well as
    public education and awareness efforts.
        What are the biggest challenges facing you right now in
    getting these completed?
        Ms. Dominguez. We have been working through a very diligent
    and thoughtful rulemaking process and we have completed two, I
    think, of the most significant, although they are all
    significant requirements in the last 6 months alone. The first
    one was on the hazardous liquid rule which was published in
    October of last year.
        The one that I was addressing today which OMB has announced
    that they have completed their review and will be looking, we,
    PHMSA, will be looking to publish that over the course of the
    next 2 weeks is on gas transmission. It is a very comprehensive
    rule addressing a number of areas with regard to integrity
    management of gas transmission and really looking at
    strengthening both hazardous liquid and gas transmission rules.
        Mr. Doyle. So what assistance can our committee provide to
    ensure that this is done as quickly and responsibly as
    possible? How can we be of assistance to you in that regard?
        Ms. Dominguez. Well, I appreciate that Congress has
    invested in PHMSA. We have received, as I mentioned, 109 new
    positions. Most of those positions have gone to the field.
    Those are inspectors. We are training them and getting them up
    to speed as quickly as possible. And we are also using the
    remaining funds to strengthen our capabilities. As I mentioned,
    one of the things that we are engaged in is organizing the
    agency itself to be more data driven, more innovative, more
    predictive. And one of the things we are doing is looking at
    enhancing our data and analytics capabilities which will, in
    turn, help us in our rulemaking by collecting data and
    informing our regulations in a more productive way moving
    forward.
        Mr. Doyle. I want to also ask you about emergency order
    authority and authority other administrators enjoy. Can you
    describe in greater detail potential events that could justify
    the use of such authority and how having such an authority
    would be beneficial in those circumstances?
        Ms. Dominguez. Thank you for the question. You are correct.
    Even within PHMSA's own program, we are responsible for both
    hazardous materials and pipeline operation, pipeline safety.
    And emergency order authority, we have it on our hazardous
    materials program side. We are seeking it on the pipeline
    safety side.
        An example of where we might use it would be--there have
    been in the past defective fittings for pipelines that have
    been found. If we were able to have emergency order authority
    we would be able to ask that directly that operators address
    those defective fittings. Pre-1970s pipe and anything that was
    low-grade steel that needed to be addressed, that has in the
    past been found to be a problem. That is the type of work that
    we would do, something that would need to be addressed on a
    national basis. That would be the circumstance for an emergency
    authority.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you. I am also interested in LNG exports
    and certainly share your support for strong safety standards in
    this area. Are there particular areas within this subject that
    you think require additional direction from our committee or
    the administration?
        Ms. Dominguez. We have been working to actually look to
    see. The LNG market has really transformed in this country over
    the course of the last 10 years alone. As you know, the United
    States has gone from importing LNG to now being a major
    exporter. I was just down in Louisiana a few weeks ago at the
    Cheniere facility which is now online and exporting LNG on a
    global basis.
        So as we move forward, we have got a very changing energy
    market and a very changing dynamic. And we have the authority
    to actually establish and enforce the safety standards for
    onshore LNG facilities, so while we look at other methods of
    transporting LNG, that is something that PHMSA is aggressively
    looking at right now, making sure that we are keeping pace with
    innovation and technology for other forms of transportation of
    LNG.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the
    chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Johnson, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And
    thank you, Administrator Dominguez, for joining us today.
        Section 11 requires that PHMSA issue new regulations for
    underground natural gas storage facilities. And the recent
    incident at an underground natural gas storage facility in
    California certainly highlights the importance of this
    requirement. So does PHMSA support this provision in Section
    11?
        Ms. Dominguez. I don't have the exact language in front of
    me. But I believe that----
        Mr. Johnson. But you know that it requires you guys to
    issue regulations. So do you support that?
        Ms. Dominguez. I will tell you that we have the authority
    right now to regulate the underground storage of natural gas.
    We do not presently have in place regulations that would
    address anything below the surface. So that would be something
    that we would work on.
        Mr. Johnson. Do you think it is important for states to
    retain a cooperative role in overseeing these facilities?
        Ms. Dominguez. We have been working cooperatively with the
    states for many years.
        Mr. Johnson. No, but do you think it is important that they
    retain that, that cooperative relationship?
        Ms. Dominguez. Absolutely. I think that what we need to do
    is work cooperatively across the board. While PHMSA sets the
    minimum federal standards, the states are always able to exceed
    those standards and should they want to put in place more
    additional requirements, they would be able to do so.
        Mr. Johnson. Section 16 of the discussion draft would
    reauthorize PHMSA's pipeline safety and grant programs and
    later today, we will hear from the states who would like to see
    an increase in state grants. The states do the bulk of the
    inspection work and the pipeline statute allows them to be
    reimbursed up to 80 percent by the Federal Government. Did the
    states receive the full 80 percent reimbursement in 2014?
        Ms. Dominguez. PHMSA, I will first and foremost tell you
    that we very much value our partnership with the states. And as
    you have stated, part of the money, a good portion of the
    monies that Congress provides us, we in turn grant to the
    states for their work----
        Mr. Johnson. We know. That is what I just said. So my
    question to you is did they receive the full 80 percent
    reimbursement in 2014?
        Ms. Dominguez. The way that the process is done is----
        Mr. Johnson. Did they receive it? That is a simple
    question. Did they receive it?
        Ms. Dominguez. The auditing is that so long as they provide
    the records, we reimburse them for the requirement----
        Mr. Johnson. That is history. That is part of your records.
    Did they receive the full 80 percent?
        Ms. Dominguez. I will have to go back to look and check the
    actual----
        Mr. Johnson. Well, I can tell you the answer, but would you
    get it and get it back to this committee, please?
        Ms. Dominguez. I would be happy to.
        Mr. Johnson. The answer is no, they did not. It was only 75
    percent and can you give us any idea why they did not?
        Ms. Dominguez. Again, as part of our process what we look
    for is confirmation of--we sent out a series of requirements
    for the states. They have to then provide their expenditures
    and then we reimburse them.
        Mr. Johnson. Would PHMSA support a relative increase in
    funds for state grants? You have acknowledged that the states
    do the bulk of the work, would you support an increase, a
    relative increase in those funds for state grants?
        Ms. Dominguez. I think the balance that we have right now,
    we are always looking to enhance safety, if that was a measure.
    The balance that we have now between the state and federal
    relationship is a good balance and if there were more funds
    available for PHMSA to help execute its state grant program, we
    would be happy to consider that.
        Mr. Johnson. I would think that balance would be improved
    if the states got the full reimbursement for their 80 percent
    though. Would you agree with that?
        Ms. Dominguez. Again, I want to be clear. Because part of
    the measure here is that there is transparency in the
    expenditures and so while it may be 80 percent or 75 percent
    reimbursement, I will check and get back to you for the record.
    That is something that is actually reviewed very seriously as
    we reimburse states for their expenditures.
        Mr. Johnson. OK, all right. Very quickly, PHMSA, as you
    know, I believe, should encourage performance based risk
    management regulations whenever possible because this data-
    drive approach to safety offers the greatest flexibility
    allowing pipeline operators to adapt their programs and plans
    to provide an adequate margin of safety.
        So it has been reported that some rules under consideration
    by PHMSA are unable to pass the cost benefit analysis. If this
    is the case, why is PHMSA having difficulty incorporating cost
    into a risk-based regulation?
        Ms. Dominguez. PHMSA's pipeline safety program, in order to
    regulate, we have a requirement that Congress provided that our
    benefits have to exceed our costs. So our rulemakings contain
    that requirement across the board.
        Mr. Johnson. OK, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The chair now recognizes Mr. Loebsack of
    Iowa for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for being
    here, Administrator Dominguez, and taking the time to testify.
    This has been a pretty enlightening hearing for me. We have 99
    counties in Iowa and we have got pipelines everywhere just like
    everyone up here and safety, obviously, is the biggest concern.
        As I read your testimony and as I hear your responses and
    what folks are saying here as well, and again, I am just trying
    to learn what you folks do exactly, what your oversight role is
    and all the rest.
        Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that a lot of what
    you do is after the fact, after pipelines have been put in the
    ground, after they have been built. Is that the case?
        Ms. Dominguez. Actually, we have a great deal of
    responsibility on the front end.
        Mr. Loebsack. Can you talk about that a little bit?
        Ms. Dominguez. Sure.
        Mr. Loebsack. Because that is really what I am more
    interested in than anything.
        Ms. Dominguez. So part of our requirements for pipeline
    safety include requirements around new construction for
    pipeline. So our requirements look at making sure that
    operators fully evaluate any newly constructed pipelines that
    go in to check on any issues that could affect a pipe's ability
    to operate safely once it is actually in operation. So our
    inspectors go out. They look at welding. They look at any kind
    of coating. And especially for new construction, I can tell you
    that we have applied about 20 to 25 percent of our resources in
    inspections to actually go out and look at new pipe that is
    being----
        Mr. Loebsack. If I can ask, I mean again, that is kind of
    after the fact, right? That is once the pipes are already
    there.
        What about, for example, when states are considering new
    pipelines? What kind of a role do you folks play in that whole
    process? A utilities board, for example, is looking at putting
    the possibility of putting a new pipeline in, might run across
    the state, might be part of the state. What role do you play at
    that point in that process, if any?
        Ms. Dominguez. PHMSA is not directly responsible for any of
    the siting issues that occur, so if it is an intrastate
    pipeline, the state would take that. If it is an interstate gas
    pipeline, FERC would take that responsibility. That said, we
    always work in close coordination and we have been working with
    the State of Iowa, as you have looked to educate, talk about
    the safety issues around pipelines. We have tried to work very
    cooperatively. I think we have done some good work with the
    State of Iowa as you look to expand your pipeline network.
        Mr. Loebsack. Who determines the integrity of these
    pipelines before a utilities board, for example, actually makes
    a decision as to whether the pipeline is going to be cited or
    not? Are those federal guidelines? Are those state guidelines?
    What are those guidelines, for example?
        Ms. Dominguez. The actual integrity of the pipeline and its
    operations is something that PHMSA takes on directly.
        Mr. Loebsack. And so the State of Iowa, for example, would
    know what those specifics are when that pipeline before it goes
    into the ground, what those specifics ought to be. Is that
    correct?
        Ms. Dominguez. The requirements for an operation of a
    pipeline and new construction criteria are standards that PHMSA
    sets.
        Mr. Loebsack. Right, and the integrity of the pipeline
    itself, if you will.
        Ms. Dominguez. Yes, we monitor the integrity of the
    pipeline itself. We put the onus of that operation through our
    integrity assessment requirements and integrity management
    practices that we have. We put that burden directly on the
    pipeline operator. The pipeline operator then has to collect
    data and we go about inspecting that and then if there is any
    anomalies or anything that we find, we take enforcement action
    against that.
        Mr. Loebsack. But all that information is known to a
    utilities board prior to their making a decision as to whether
    they are going to site a pipeline or not?
        Ms. Dominguez. We provide a lot of educational material to
    NARUC and a number of the public utilities commissions around
    the country.
        Mr. Loebsack. Will the proposed legislation here have any
    effect whatsoever on that--on those particulars and on that
    process?
        Ms. Dominguez. I would have to look at the legislation and
    respond back to you. I am not familiar with the particular
    section of the proposed legislation.
        Mr. Loebsack. I just want to make sure that not only the
    utilities board in any particular state, but the public who are
    involved in the process have all that information as well
    because there are public hearings, as you know, whenever there
    is a siting.
        Ms. Dominguez. We have a great deal of material. PHMSA has
    a great deal of material on our Web site that talks about all
    of the many aspects that we actually cover with regard to new
    construction of pipeline, assessment, and enforcement actions.
        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you,
    Mr. Chair. I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the
    chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Mullin, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Mullin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    holding this meeting.
        Ma'am, we do appreciate you being here. I know you are
    fairly new and you are trying to get your head wrapped around
    it. And I commend you for what you are trying to do.
    Unfortunately, what we have seen as PHMSA has got a lot of
    concerns from Congress right now and the way that you are
    spending money and the grant programs that they are going to.
    And so that is one of the questions I have.
        To the Technical Assistance Grants program run by your
    agency, it seems to be a tremendous help providing additional
    training and education on training pipeline safety issues.
    Unfortunately, I am increasingly concerned that some of these
    taxpayer dollars are being awarded to groups that publicly
    oppose new pipeline infrastructure which was not the intent of
    Congress. With Congress looking to reauthorize the program, can
    you assure us that you will provide the oversight necessary to
    ensure these grants are being executed as Congress intended?
        Ms. Dominguez. The Technical Assistance Grants that we have
    provided to states, I believe are valuable programs for
    education for emergency responders as well as the communities
    around the country. PHMSA indeed has very strong internal
    controls, to answer your question, about how these grant
    applications are not only reviewed, but also how they are
    awarded and administered. And so that would continue moving
    forward.
        Mr. Mullin. Specifically, directing though the issue, how
    are these grants getting into the hands of people that are
    opposing it? If it is supposed to go for training, how is it
    going to people that oppose the pipelines? That has nothing to
    do with training. That has to do with people that are
    environmentalists, that they don't want the infrastructure
    built to begin with and they are spending money to oppose the
    pipelines to begin with. It has already been happening, so how
    can you assure us it is not going to continue to happen? The
    oversight, what steps has your agency taken since you have been
    at the helm since August?
        Ms. Dominguez. So as move forward on Technical Assistance
    Grants, we would look to make sure that indeed all of those
    requirements, whether it is review----
        Mr. Mullin. What are those requirements?
        Ms. Dominguez. There is a series of requirements that each
    applicant has to meet before----
        Mr. Mullin. Specifically, do you know what those
    requirements are?
        Ms. Dominguez. I don't have them with me, but I would be
    happy to provide them to you.
        Mr. Mullin. Are those the same ones that have been in
    place? Or have they been changed since you been there?
        Ms. Dominguez. They are the same that have been in place--
    --
        Mr. Mullin. So no changes have been made to assure these
    programs can be made. What we are trying to do here, ma'am, is
    we want to make sure that the tax dollars are being used for
    their intended purpose. And if there has been no changes made,
    we already know that these technical grants that went to
    organizations that don't support pipelines period, they oppose
    them. These are for training to provide safety for those that
    are installing the pipelines and maintaining the pipelines, not
    for opposition groups. So if you haven't made any changes to
    it, then you can't assure us that it is not going to continue
    to be spent in the wrong way.
        Ms. Dominguez. I would be happy to look and do an
    assessment of the recipients of the Technical Assistance Grants
    to see where some of the actual recipients, what they have done
    with the money, but I can tell you that we do that as part of
    an annual process and review of our grants in general.
        Mr. Mullin. But even by saying that you did it annually,
    there has been no changes. So does that happen annually then?
    Have you not done it since you have been there?
        Ms. Dominguez. Not since I have been there, but we are
    coming up on a review of the programs right now, so I will
    certainly take a look at it.
        Mr. Mullin. Could you please do me a favor? When you do
    look at it, could you get back to either this committee or to
    my office and let us know what changes are going to be made?
    Because I can tell you that if it is going to continue the way
    that it is going, then there is no way I am going to be able to
    support reauthorization.
        Our number one goal is to have the intent of what Congress
    had for the tax dollars to be spent that way. And when we have
    opposing groups that are provided with grants that are supposed
    to be for safety and technical training and they are using it
    to oppose the projects to begin with, it seems like that is a
    waste of taxpayer dollars. Would you agree?
        Ms. Dominguez. I am not aware of a direct instance where a
    group has come into those dollars, federal dollars, but I will
    certainly look----
        Mr. Mullin. We will be happy to provide you with a list of
    those that have received those grants.
        Now to switch real quick to my last question, I want to
    talk about states. What is the relationship between the states
    and PHMSA right now as far as with pipeline safety and training
    and working with the states and not against the states?
        Ms. Dominguez. I think we have a very good working
    relationship with the states across the board. PHMSA is the
    federal regulator. The states often across the board have
    authority and through a certification process with PHMSA to
    conduct inspections within their respective states. We work
    cooperatively on that entire process. It is one where we are
    constantly exchanging information.
        One of the things that we are looking to do in this
    reauthorization is make sure that the inspection data that the
    states are collecting is something that we can collect at a
    federal level as well, to make sure that the data analysis is
    as robust as it can be in identifying risk and that is through
    our information sharing system.
        Mr. Mullin. Thank you and I went over my time. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman, for yielding more time to me. Thank you.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back his time. The
    chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Administrator
    Dominguez, welcome. Thank you for your leadership.
        As you may know, my district which is in the Capital
    District region in Upstate New York, has become a hub for
    energy transportation in recent years, seeing a tremendous boom
    in crude by rail shipments.
        Can you provide an update on the crude by rail spill
    response plan rulemaking?
        Ms. Dominguez. Thank you for the question, sir. We are
    moving that rulemaking very quickly. As you know, the Congress
    passed the FAST Act. It made some changes to some of the
    provisions. We have updated the rulemaking to reflect those
    changes that the Congress passed in the FAST Act and we have
    moved that forward through the Department, the rulemaking, and
    are working with our colleagues at OMB for a review of that
    rule right now.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And I know you cannot comment on the
    specifics of that package, but can you explain just what was
    under consideration, what is under consideration?
        Ms. Dominguez. For the oil spill response?
        Mr. Tonko. Yes.
        Ms. Dominguez. We are looking at the provisions that were
    outlined by the Congress and some of the requirements under the
    FAST Act to make sure that all of those provisions are
    addressed.
        Mr. Tonko. Right. And you mentioned the FAST Act and the
    fact that you had to incorporate that into your actions. Are
    there new requirements or timelines that you need to take under
    consideration, other time lines?
        Ms. Dominguez. There are. There are new requirements for
    retrofit schedules and other things with regard to tank car top
    fittings and other aspects of the redesign that we have now
    taken into account based on the FAST Act.
        Mr. Tonko. Let me just state that I believe that it is
    critical for the public and the emergency responders' safety
    that they have all the information, the resources, and
    equipment in place to respond to an incident quickly and
    effectively. And spill plans are an important part of that
    effort.
        I am encouraged that you are moving forward. I hope that it
    is done expeditiously so that we can finish the rule and
    provide those elements to the individuals and groups that I
    just mentioned.
        But to bring this back to pipeline safety, the National
    Academy of Sciences had a recent study that raised issues with
    PHMSA's review of spill response plans. Does PHMSA review, do
    their review plans based on completeness? Do they base it on
    completeness or is the adequacy of those plans also taken under
    consideration?
        Ms. Dominguez. PHMSA actually looks very directly as
    facility response plans for completeness and accuracy to ensure
    that the operators considered all of the risk and the resources
    in accordance with our federal regulations.
        Mr. Tonko. Does PHMSA make recommendations about those
    plans that it feels are inadequate?
        Ms. Dominguez. Yes, we do. We comment directly on them. We
    send them back to the operators if they are not complete and
    require them to address any inconsistencies or any failings
    that we find in the response plan. They are obligated to then
    update them and resubmit them for review before we approve
    them.
        Mr. Tonko. And just how does that work in a functional way?
    Do they respond to those concerns about inadequacy?
        Ms. Dominguez. Yes they do. It is an iterative process.
        Mr. Tonko. I didn't hear what you said.
        Ms. Dominguez. It is an iterative process, so they are
    constantly being updated.
        Mr. Tonko. OK.
        Ms. Dominguez. Where they are constantly being updated.
        Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. And is PHMSA's decision not
    to regularly conduct two-stage reviews, one for completeness,
    one for adequacy for spill plans an issue of lack of agency
    resources or is it a lack of legal authority?
        Ms. Dominguez. As I stated, we do look for both
    completeness and accuracy for facility response plans.
        Mr. Tonko. OK, and has PHMSA made any progress in
    instituting the NTSB's recommendations on this issue?
        Ms. Dominguez. I believe that our requirements now meet the
    NTSB requirements, but I will check and make sure and respond
    directly to you.
        Mr. Tonko. OK. And with an issue of resources, is there an
    adequate amount of resources to provide for an expeditious
    response to these efforts that come before the PHMSA group or
    are there areas of resource activity that could be
    strengthening your response?
        Ms. Dominguez. We have worked very diligently over the
    course of the last couple of years to make sure that all of the
    facility response plans that PHMSA reviews are up to date and
    complete. And we have put an enormous amount of resources in
    that process to make sure that that has occurred. Moving
    forward, if there are additional areas for investment, we will
    be sure to circle back with you. Thank you.
        Mr. Tonko. I would appreciate that. And with that, Mr.
    Chair, I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. This time the
    chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Hudson,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
    being here with us today. I want to follow up on the line of
    questioning from my colleague, Mr. Mullin, talking about--and I
    was pleased to hear you talk about the importance of the
    cooperation with states, but my question is if states are so
    vital to PHMSA's pipeline safety program, why did PHMSA
    announce that it intended to rescind existing state-interstate
    agreements and disallow additional states to become interstate
    agents?
        Ms. Dominguez. So I appreciate your question. One of the
    things that we have continued to work on is exactly how we
    would continue to make sure that not only are we working as
    cooperatively as possible, I had a chance, actually, one of the
    first meetings that I did was go and meet with the National
    Association of State Pipeline Safety Representatives. These are
    the folks in every single state that represents the state
    inspection process and are our partners across the board. And
    that group is a very dedicated group of professionals looking
    to undertake pipeline safety at a very, very local level and we
    greatly appreciate our partnership with them.
        That said, we want to make sure that everything that we
    look at, that we use the money that Congress has given us to
    make sure that if there is a state that has been in trouble,
    that we are using the dollars to make sure that we are
    investing in that state to help rehabilitate them. The last
    thing we want to do is look to decertify a state for their
    state program.
        So any monies that are given to us for investment in a
    state would literally be used to help rehabilitate a state and
    make sure that we are not in a position of revoking their
    authority. That would be the last measure that we would look to
    take. Rather, we would look to invest in them and help them
    strengthen their program first and foremost.
        Mr. Hudson. So this announcement of the intention of
    rescinding existing state-interstate agreements is only focused
    on states where there is a problem? Is that what you are
    saying?
        Ms. Dominguez. I am not aware of an announcement that PHMSA
    has made with regard to decertifying states. We would, again,
    our first action would be to work directly with the states and
    look to make sure that we enhance their capability to perform
    their program.
        Mr. Hudson. OK, well, let me switch gears and talk about
    gathering lines for a second. Section 21 of the 2011 law
    directed PHMSA to review and report to Congress on existing
    federal and state regulations for all gathering lines. With
    this report, which was submitted more than a year late, PHMSA
    stated that it is considering the need to propose additional
    regulations to ensure the safety of natural gas and hazardous
    liquid gathering lines.
        Is PHMSA reviewing the need to propose changes to existing
    exemptions from federal regulation for gathering lines? If so,
    when will this review conclude?
        Ms. Dominguez. We are in the process of looking at that
    right now. Part of the work that we have done with our gas
    transmission rule includes gathering lines. And so as we look
    to publish the requirements in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    for our gas transmission rule, it will include gathering lines.
        Mr. Hudson. OK. And when do you expect that to conclude?
        Ms. Dominguez. We received noticed this morning that OMB is
    concluding their review and we hope to publish the Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking for gas transmission sometime in the next 2
    weeks.
        Mr. Hudson. Thank you. Switching gears one more time here
    before I run out of time, the issue of Maximum Allowable
    Operating Pressure. Section 23 of the 2011 law directed PHMSA
    to require each pipeline owner or operator to verify that the
    records accurately reflect the physical and operational
    characteristics of the pipeline and to confirm the established
    Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure of the pipelines.
    Inadequate records for older pipelines have been a long-
    standing concern. The statutory deadline was July 3, 2013. When
    can we expect PHMSA to finalize the regulation addressing this
    issue?
        Ms. Dominguez. For Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure, a
    good portion of that is covered in the two regulations that I
    mentioned earlier, hazardous liquid rule and our gas
    transmission rule. So the hazardous liquid rule is covered, a
    portion of that. But the gas transmission rule also covers how
    we would best address that for gas.
        Mr. Hudson. So that addresses the issue with the older
    pipelines where we had insufficient records?
        Ms. Dominguez. Correct.
        Mr. Hudson. OK. Thank you for that. I am about out of time,
    Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. This time the
    chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Long, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Doyle kind of hit on
    this question earlier, but your agency still needs to fulfill
    16 of the 42 mandates from the 2011 Pipeline Safety Act. And in
    your testimony you mentioned that ten mandates will be
    addressed as part of the current rulemaking activities, but the
    remaining six are tied to reports and information collections.
    Why are several of these still in the early information
    collection phase?
        Ms. Dominguez. We are working through those. Right now,
    several of these reports are tied to some of the rulemakings
    that we are doing. So as we publish the rules, we will be
    publishing some of the reports. Moving forward, we are still
    doing some information collection. Technology is advancing and
    we still have opportunity to collect some more data to inform
    our reports moving forward and that is what we are focused on.
        Mr. Long. So tell me again the technology is advancing and
    that is slowing down the--I mean technology is advancing all
    the time.
        Ms. Dominguez. It is. So we are still working on
    information collection on several of those fronts. I am happy
    to give you the details about exactly the specifics that you
    are looking at, but I think that the two remaining information
    collection opportunities we have under way and I can give you a
    report. It is also on our Web site. But I will be happy to give
    you a direct update on it.
        Mr. Long. OK, because what I am kind of looking for is how
    we can speed up that process and get the information. So
    production of liquefied--excuse me, I didn't know I had a frog
    in my throat before I started this. Production of liquefied
    natural gas has increased significantly, as you know, in the
    last few years. How has your agency kept up with the LNG boom
    and have you been able to effectively update codes and design
    standards to keep up with this boom?
        Ms. Dominguez. So we have been looking very directly at
    LNG. It is something that, as you noted, has really changed the
    landscape of the United States. And one of the things that we
    are looking at is how we would update our regulations to make
    sure that we are keeping pace with the technology as it moves
    forward.
        We are updating our regs right now to provide for certainty
    in the design in the construction and the operation of small
    scale liquefaction facilities moving forward.
        Mr. Long. How effectively do you work with FERC as a
    coordinating agency for siting and reviewing LNG facilities?
        Ms. Dominguez. We have a good working relationship with
    FERC and they are directly responsible for a number of the
    siting requirements, in particular, for large scale LNG
    facilities.
        Mr. Long. In your testimony, you mention the important role
    states play in inspecting and enforcing both federal and state
    regulations. How closely do you work with these states in
    developing those regulations?
        Ms. Dominguez. We work very closely with the states. The
    Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is
    directly responsible for setting the federal standards and in
    turn, states then adopt those standards and are able to go
    above and beyond our requirements. And as the states directly
    carry out through a certification process with PHMSA, some of
    the inspection requirements, we work hand-in-glove with them,
    not only to make sure that their state inspectors come to our
    training facility, can take advantage of our--and we help
    provide funds to make sure that they are able to come and get
    trained on the requirements. But then we also work very
    directly with them in the execution of their state programs.
        Mr. Long. Of the what?
        Ms. Dominguez. Their state programs.
        Mr. Long. OK, so setting safety standards, things of that
    nature?
        Ms. Dominguez. Correct.
        Mr. Long. OK, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the
    chair recognizes Mr. Griffith of Virginia for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I do
    appreciate you being here today. I apologize. We had a meeting
    related to the coal industry and black lung. We had a round
    table with Chairman Bobby Scott and another committee was
    hosting and I have a district that has produced a lot of coal
    over the years, and so that was an important issue as well.
        Now along those lines, we have a lot of pipelines being
    built now because of what I would see as the EPA's war on coal
    and the shutdown of like half of the industry in the last
    couple of years. The EPA is moving to regulate emissions of
    methane in the oil and gas industry by requiring oil and gas
    processing and transmission facilities to find and repair
    methane leaks. This was part of a speech given last week by the
    EPA director, administrator.
        PHMSA has already proposed a leak detection rule and has
    worked with the industry to reduce leaks. In fact, I think
    overall, methane emissions are down about 13 percent in the
    last couple of years through various things that you all are
    doing. I have concerns about the EPA imposing new regulations
    on pipeline operations that PHMSA already regulates.
        Has PHMSA provided any advice or guidance to the EPA in the
    development of their strategies and their proposals? Has EPA
    solicited any advice from you all? And does PHMSA foresee
    working with the EPA in the development of yet new regulations
    in this arena?
        Because time is short, if you could answer all of that
    quick, I would appreciate it.
        Ms. Dominguez. I think that one of the issues that we need
    to continuously look at in this country is the issue of aging
    infrastructure writ large. And one of the by-products of aging
    infrastructure is leaks, particularly in natural gas pipelines.
        So as we look to invest in replacement of old pipe, that
    helps reduce methane emissions, but also across the board helps
    with that larger goal. We always look to partner with our
    federal----
        Mr. Griffith. Yes, ma'am.
        Ms. Dominguez. Across the board, so would be happy to
    continue to do that.
        Mr. Griffith. Well, it appears that you all have been doing
    a fairly good job, so I hope they don't come in and start
    changing a lot of things. I would also have to note that
    according to Ms. McCarthy, the administrator of the EPA,
    methane is upwards to 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide,
    so I am a little concerned about that because they have been
    working so hard to eliminate coal, the fossil fuel that is used
    in this country of which we have an abundant supply. I wonder
    if this is just the opening salvo in a new war on natural gas?
        That being said though, we do have a lot of natural gas
    pipelines being built. The Mountain Valley Pipeline is coming
    through my district. I am very pleased to see that you all
    participated in the scoping hearings related to the Mountain
    Valley Pipeline. And so I guess I have to ask what role do you
    all play in advising or assisting either the pipeline companies
    or FERC prior to FERC approval of a new gas pipeline?
        Ms. Dominguez. Thank you for the question. We are truly in
    an advisory and a support role, both to the states and to FERC
    during the siting process. So if there are questions about
    safety, we often partner with FERC or the states to make sure
    that if citizens have questions during public meetings, et
    cetera, we talk through what our requirements are for design,
    construction, etcetera, of new pipeline.
        Mr. Griffith. I appreciate that. In mountainous crossings,
    and my district has got a lot of mountains in it, what are
    PHMSA's top concerns and where do you see the greatest
    difficulty ensuring the long-term structural safety of
    pipelines when they are crossing over and through mountains?
        Ms. Dominguez. I would tell you that our requirements are
    fairly robust in the new construction criteria. And so
    regardless of terrain, there are requirements that look at the
    geology of any particular area and that those requirements are
    met as new pipe is constructed.
        Mr. Griffith. And are there other areas that you believe
    that PHMSA and FERC could collaborate to a greater extent to
    ensure the safety concerns that a lot of my constituents are
    raising and can you get in early in that process as well?
        Ms. Dominguez. We, I believe, have been working. I had a
    chance to meet with the chairman of FERC, Norman Bay, and we
    have been working very collaboratively at a very local level to
    make sure that we are addressing citizens' concerns. And
    PHMSA's role in all of that is to again articulate what our
    safety mission is and how the actual operation of a pipeline
    would work once it is in the ground.
        Mr. Griffith. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. And Mr.
    Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back and that concludes
    the questions, except I have one other question before I let
    you go. Frequently, we see charts of reportable incidents on
    pipeline safety and it seems to be going up. What is the actual
    definition of an incident or a significant incident at PHMSA?
        Ms. Dominguez. I don't have the actual definition, if it is
    published, ready at hand, but I will tell you that any time
    there is an impact on people or the environment that impacts
    the work that we do as a result of the operation of a pipeline.
    So----
        Mr. Whitfield. So if a pipeline leaks any amount, is that
    an incident that must be reported?
        Ms. Dominguez. I will be happy to clarify for the record
    exactly what the requirement is for reporting on an actual
    incident.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK. I would appreciate that because I think
    that is important for us to know.
        Madam Administrator, thank you very much for taking the
    time to be with us today. We appreciate your testimony and look
    forward to working with you as we move forward and that
    concludes the questions for you.
        So at this time I would like to call up the second panel of
    witnesses. On the second panel of witnesses we have five
    panelists. And rather than introduce all of them right now, I
    am just going to introduce them one time and that is when I
    recognize them for their testimony.
        Our first witness this morning is Mr. Norman Saari who is
    the Commissioner for the Michigan Public Service Commission.
    And he is testifying on behalf of the National Association of
    Regulatory Commissioners. So Mr. Saari, thanks very much for
    joining us and you are recognized for 5 minutes.

     STATEMENTS OF NORMAN J. SAARI, COMMISSIONER, MICHIGAN PUBLIC
     SERVICE COMMISSION (ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
    REGULATORY UTILITY COMMISSIONERS); RON BRADLEY, VICE PRESIDENT
     OF GAS OPERATIONS, PECO ENERGY (ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN GAS
     ASSOCIATION); ANDREW BLACK, PRESIDENT AND CEO, ASSOCIATION OF
      OIL PIPE LINES; DONALD SANTA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, INTERSTATE
    NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; AND CARL WEIMER, EXECUTIVE
                    DIRECTOR, PIPELINE SAFETY TRUST

                      STATEMENT OF NORMAN J. SAARI

        Mr. Saari. Chairman, ranking member, committee members,
    thank you for the opportunity to appear today. I want to
    personally thank you for the invitation to share some thoughts
    and the commitment from a state regulator's perspective of the
    importance of safe and efficient----
        Mr. Whitfield. Be sure to just turn that microphone on.
        Mr. Saari. I beg your pardon, sir. I want to thank you for
    the opportunity to be here today. When Henry Ford rolled his
    first car off the assembly line in 1913, it may have traveled
    on a roadway that already had natural gas pipeline buried
    beneath it. That Ford Model T is likely now in a museum, but
    there may be some of the city's original gas pipeline still
    intact and still in use. That car was probably taken out of
    service because of its reliability and safety. We have a
    responsibility to make sure that the pipeline meets up-to-date
    reliability in current safety standards or it, too, must be
    taken out of service or replaced.
        The Michigan Public Service Commission joins with
    regulators nationwide to work on programs that ensure safe
    operations of the existing natural gas infrastructure on new
    projects with a top priority of protecting public health and
    safety in an environmentally-conscious manner. We join and
    collaborate with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
    Administration, PHMSA, the U.S. Department of Transportation,
    FERC, and other federal agencies to coordinate these programs
    between federal interstate pipeline jurisdiction and state
    intrastate regulation.
        As I have highlighted in my submitted testimony, states
    rely upon a working partnership with PHMSA to develop and
    coordinate pipeline safety programs. This mutual effort
    requires sufficient federal funding needed to achieve the
    excellence we seek to administer one-call programs, complete
    timely inspections of new and existing natural gas lines,
    monitor and regulate gas storage facilities, and promote public
    education and awareness.
        The Michigan Commission works with its local companies to
    regulate programs for gas main construction and replacement and
    gas storage field operations and safety upgrades, while finding
    the proper balance of what its rate payers can afford to pay.
        Meeting the completion targets of replacement over 7,000
    miles in Michigan of natural gas mains will require
    expenditures over the next decade in the hundreds of millions
    of dollars. Other states have similar financial challenges.
    Staying on track and on target to meet these goals will require
    increased financial support from PHMSA to the states.
        Current law says that the states may be reimbursed up to 80
    percent by the Federal Government. During the 4 years prior to
    2014, states averaged only 73 percent reimbursement and needed
    to request suspensions to merely achieve that level of
    reimbursement. In 2014, the latest year money was reimbursed to
    the states, the base grant was about $42.2 million for gas and
    hazardous liquids. The state spent about $56.4 million on these
    pipeline safety programs. This meant states as a whole were
    reimbursed approximately 75 percent of what they spent.
        In order to keep state programs where they currently are,
    we would respectfully request an authorization for
    appropriation and appropriation for the fiscal year 2016 of no
    less than $49.5 million for state base grants increasing by no
    less than 4 percent each fiscal year thereafter. We need to be
    fully authorized and funded to carry out our mission.
        We all benefit from a sharing of information on best work
    practices, best regulatory approach, and best use of resources
    to meet these goals.
        Thank you for the opportunity to tell you that Michigan
    joins with NARUC and all other state regulators to work
    collaboratively with government and various stakeholder groups
    to achieve a world class pipeline safety program. Thank you,
    sir.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Saari follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Saari, thank you very much.
        Our next witness is Mr. Ron Bradley who is vice president
    of Gas Operations at PECO Energy. And you are testifying on
    behalf of the American Gas Association. Welcome, and you are
    recognized for 5 minutes, Mr. Bradley.

                        STATEMENT OF RON BRADLEY

        Mr. Bradley. Good morning, Chairman Whitfield and members
    of the committee. My name is Ron Bradley, and I serve as vice
    president of Gas Operations at PECO, which safely provides
    reliable electric and natural gas service to approximately two
    million customers in southeastern Pennsylvania.
        PECO is part of the Exelon family of companies. Exelon is
    the nation's largest competitive energy provider serving more
    than eight million electric and natural gas customers in
    Illinois, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. Today, I am testifying on
    behalf of the American Gas Association which represents more
    than 200 local distribution companies, also known as LDCs.
        AGA members' companies operate 2.5 million miles of
    underground pipeline safely delivering clean, affordable
    natural gas to more than 71 million customers. LDCs provide the
    last critical link in the energy delivery chain connecting
    interstate pipelines directly to homes and businesses. Our
    focus every day is ensuring that we keep the gas flowing safely
    and reliably.
        As part of an agreement with the Federal Government, most
    states assume primary responsibility for the safety and
    regulation of LDCs, as well as intrastate transmission
    pipelines. Many states adopt standards that exceed federal
    requirements. Additionally, our companies are in close contact
    with state pipeline safety inspectors which permit a greater
    number of inspections to occur than is required by federal law.
        In addition to a culture of compliance, LDCs embrace the
    culture of proactive, collaborative engagement. Each company
    employs trained safety professionals, provides safety training,
    conducts rigorous system inspections, testing, maintenance and
    repair, and replacement programs, and educates the public on
    natural gas safety. AGA's commitment to enhancing safety
    adopted in 2011 provides a summary of these commitments beyond
    federal regulation.
        The commitment to enhancing safety has been modified
    several times to address new issues that have been identified
    and was recently modified to include actions to improve the
    safety of underground storage operations. The AGA has also
    developed numerous pipeline safety initiatives focused on
    raising the bar on safety including peer-to-peer reviews and
    best practice forums that share best practices and lessons
    learned throughout the industry. Each year, LDCs spent
    approximately $22 billion on safety. Approximately half of that
    on our voluntary actions. This number continues to escalate as
    work commences on newly approved accelerated pipeline
    replacement programs.
        Now turning to a review of the legislation. The Pipeline
    Inspection, Protection, Enforcement and Safety Act of 2006 and
    the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Creation, and Job Creation Act
    of 2011 created new programs to improve the safety of the
    industry. AGA member companies have implemented aspects of
    these programs either voluntarily or through DOT regulation.
    However, many of these programs are in their infancy in terms
    of implementation, and we encourage Congress to allow these
    programs to develop and mature in order to realize their full
    impact.
        In the case of the unanimously passed 2011 Act, several
    regulations have yet to be promulgated or finalized. The
    progress that is being made is very important that the focus be
    on finishing the outstanding work. We commend the committee for
    emphasizing this in its initial draft. Layering new laws and
    regulation on to companies before existing regulations have
    been finalized and provided time to succeed creates uncertainty
    that undermines our shared safety goals.
        While we appreciate the committee's efforts to put forward
    a bipartisan bill, we are supportive of most of the text. We
    are very concerned that Section 15 of the draft bill would
    allow a person to bring a civil action in a District Court of
    the United States for injunction against PHMSA for failure to
    perform any nondiscretionary duty, even if PHMSA was engaged in
    enforcing its mandatory obligations under the law. This would
    have a deleterious effect of undermining and thus weakening the
    federal regulatory oversight this committee seeks to enhance
    and could cause market uncertainty.
        Moreover, to the extent that PHMSA would have to dedicate
    resources and time to litigation or complying with a court
    order, it could significantly diminish the agency's ability to
    work on other congressional priorities, thus negatively
    impacting pipeline safety.
        The creation of such a legal remedy could be used by
    individuals, however well intentioned, in a way that would be
    counter to the best interests of the nation, individual states,
    industry, and ultimately consumers while not necessarily
    enhancing safety. Thus, we respectfully urge the removal of
    Section 15 of the bill. The industry is already experiencing
    significant uncertainty regarding PHMSA's implementation of
    outstanding mandates in the 2011 bill.
        Regarding replacement of cast iron mains, a focus of the
    2011 pipeline safety reauthorization. The quantity of these
    mains continues to steadily decline. As of today, overall cast
    iron mains makes up less than two percent of total mileage.
    Natural gas utilities are working with legislators and
    regulators to accelerate the replacement of these pipelines. To
    date, 39 states and the District of Columbia have adopted
    specific rate mechanisms that facilitate accelerated
    replacement of pipelines that are primary candidates for system
    enhancement.
        In addition to what I have highlighted, my written
    testimony provides updates on the industry's efforts with
    regard to incident notification, data collection, and
    information sharing, and research and development. I am pleased
    to answer questions on these topics or any other topics that
    you have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bradley follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Bradley. Our next witness is
    Mr. Andrew Black. I am delighted to have you back at the Energy
    and Commerce Committee, Andy. He is president and CEO of the
    Association of Oil Pipelines and also, my understanding,
    testifying on behalf of API. So you are recognized for 5
    minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF ANDREW BLACK

        Mr. Black. Thank you, chairman, ranking member. The
    Association of Oil Pipelines who deliver crude oil, refined
    products like gasoline, diesel fuel, and jet fuel and natural
    gas liquids such as propane. As the chairman indicated, I am
    also testifying on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute.
        Our U.S. pipelines safely deliver more than 16.2 billion
    barrels of crude oil and energy products a year. Pipelines play
    a critical role in delivering energy to American workers and
    families. Americans use the energy our pipelines deliver in
    their cars and trucks to commute to work or drive on the job,
    provide rural heating and crop drying and support good paying
    manufacturing jobs. The average barrel of crude oil or
    petroleum products reaches its destination safely, by pipeline,
    greater than 99.999 percent of the time.
        Addressing Mr. McKinley's question earlier, according to
    PHMSA date, significant liquids pipeline incidents that could
    affect high-consequence areas are down 8 percent over the last
    5 years. Significant incidents per mile that are over 50
    barrels in size are down 19 percent over the last 5 years. But
    even with these positive pipeline safety performance numbers,
    the member companies of AOPL and API are constantly working to
    improve pipeline safety further.
        Last year, operators completed development of a number of
    industry-wide recommended practices and technical reports to
    improve our ability to detect pipeline cracking, integrate
    safety data, manage safety efforts holistically, manage leak
    detection programs, and better plan for and respond to pipeline
    emergencies.
        This year, we turn to implementation of these safety
    recommendations industry wide. A prime example is our effort to
    encourage and assist implementation of API Recommended Practice
    1173 for pipeline safety management systems. Recommended by the
    NTSB and developed in conjunction with PHMSA and state pipeline
    regulators, this tool is helping pipeline operators
    comprehensively manage all the safety efforts underway across
    the company. The aviation, nuclear power, and chemical
    manufacturing industries have benefitted from safety management
    systems. Now more pipeline operators are benefitting, too.
        This year, pipeline operators will also complete expansion
    of industry wide recommended practice on river crossings,
    develop a new one for construction quality management, and
    update industry-wide recommendations for pipeline integrity
    program management. This last safety improvement action brings
    us to last summer's pipeline release near Refugio, California.
    We echoed Transportation Secretary Foxx calling the preliminary
    instant report from PHMSA ``an important step forward that will
    help us learn what went wrong so that everyone involved can
    take action and ensure that it does not happen again.'' Our
    members are committed to doing just that.
        PHMSA's preliminary factual findings could be described as
    the what of the incident. We expect PHMSA's final report later
    this year will contain root cause analysis and recommendations
    describing the still unknown how and why this incident
    occurred. At a minimum, we know there is opportunity for
    further industry-wide discussion and perhaps guidance for those
    operators that use the specific type of pipe involved in that
    incident, insulated pipe transporting heated crude. As part of
    our update of this industry-wide integrity management guidance,
    we will ensure learnings from industry-wide review and PHMSA
    incident report recommendations are reviewed and incorporated
    where appropriate. The effort should be finished later this
    year, far more expeditiously than could occur through an agency
    notice and comment rulemaking process.
        Turning to the next reauthorization, there is still much
    left for PHMSA to do from the 2011 law. PHMSA is working to
    finalize a broad liquids pipeline rulemaking as the
    administrator said, and may propose a rulemaking on valves
    soon.
        We commend Congress for its recent oversight in PHMSA,
    which has resulted in the administration issuing several
    rulemaking proposals and promising additional proposals and we
    encourage your ongoing oversight. Pipeline operators have not
    stood by and instead have advanced safety initiatives on
    inspection technology, cracking, data integration, safety
    management, leak detection, and emergency response. With the
    numerous recent industry initiatives addressing current
    pipeline safety topics, and additional PHMSA regulatory actions
    still to come, we encourage Congress to reauthorize the
    pipeline safety program soon without adding significant new
    provisions.
        Upon a brief review of the committee's discussion draft,
    AOPL and API would find it difficult to support the draft with
    the inclusion of Section 15. Private mandamus civil actions to
    compel agencies to perform certain duties have earned the
    moniker ``sue and settle'' because of their abuse at agencies
    such as EPA. A Chamber of Commerce report identified 60 cases
    of ``sue and settle'' lawsuits from 2009 to 2012 resulting in
    100 new EPA regulations costing from tens of millions to
    billions of dollars each. ``Sue and settle'' circumvents public
    participation, dilutes congressional oversight, bypasses
    standard administration review and analysis, and it limits
    agency transparency.
        In January, the House expressed its concern with ``sue and
    settle'' abuse by passing H.R. 712, reforming these processes
    in legislation that sadly appears unlikely to become public
    law. We urge that Section 15 be removed from the draft.
        Thank you for inviting me here today and I look forward to
    answering any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Black follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Black. Our next witness is
    Mr. Donald Santa who is president and CEO of the Interstate
    Natural Gas Association of America.
        Welcome back, Mr. Santa, and you are recognized for 5
    minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF DONALD SANTA

        Mr. Santa. Good morning and thank you, Chairman Whitfield,
    Ranking Member Rush, and members of the subcommittee. My name
    is Donald Santa, and I am president and CEO of the Interstate
    Natural Gas Association of America, or INGAA. INGAA represents
    interstate natural gas transmission pipeline operators in the
    U.S. and Canada. The pipeline systems operated by INGAA's 24
    member companies are analogous to the interstate highway
    system, transporting natural gas across state and regional
    boundaries.
        INGAA testified before this subcommittee last July
    regarding pipeline safety and reauthorization of the Pipeline
    Safety Act. In that testimony, I outlined INGAA's safety
    commitments, undertaken in 2011, and the most recent amendments
    to the law that specifically affect natural gas transmission
    safety programs. I direct my testimony today to the specifics
    of the draft reauthorization bill now before the subcommittee.
        INGAA has consistently advocated three goals in connection
    with the pending reauthorization of the Pipeline Safety Act.
    These goals are first, establish authorized funding levels for
    the pipeline safety programs at PHMSA for the next 4 fiscal
    years; second, continue to focus PHMSA rulemaking resources on
    the completion of the remaining mandates from the 2011
    reauthorization, with one exception below; and third, that
    exception, create federal minimum safety standards and
    regulations for underground natural gas storage facilities.
        The discussion draft meets these three goals. There is also
    very similar to the bill, S.2276, approved last December by the
    Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. That
    legislation is now pending before the full Senate and may be
    approved as early as this week. We appreciate that this
    subcommittee's discussion draft parallels the Senate bill in
    most respects because this will make it far easier to
    conference the two bills.
        A few quick points. First, the fiscal years covered by this
    authorization. The Senate legislation covers fiscal years 2016
    through 2019. This technically would be a 4-year authorization.
    As a practical matter, fiscal year 2016 has already been
    appropriated, and by the time this legislation is enacted, the
    current fiscal year will be close to an end. For this truly to
    be a 4-year authorization, INGAA suggests beginning with the
    fiscal year 2017 authorization or in the alternative, making
    the authorization effective through fiscal year 2020.
        Second, we agree with the manner in which the underground
    natural gas storage section was drafted and especially the
    clarification that PHMSA may delegate to a state the authority
    to regulate intrastate storage facilities. This provision has
    our support.
        Discussion draft, however, differs from the Senate bill in
    one important respect. Namely, the draft includes a provision
    that would allow an individual petition a federal district
    court to enjoin PHMSA in connection with that agency's alleged
    failure to act. As explained further in my written testimony,
    INGAA believes that this provision is ill-advised. It would
    allow the priorities of individual parties and the judgment of
    a federal district court judge to supplant the pipeline safety
    priorities and the allocation of agency resources established
    by PHMSA pursuant to the guidance provided by Congress. INGAA
    would seriously consider opposing the Pipeline Safety Bill if
    this provision were included.
        My written testimony includes comments on several other
    provisions in the draft bill which in the interest of time I
    will omit for my oral statement.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to provide
    INGAA's views on the discussion draft. I would be happy to
    answer your questions at the appropriate time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Santa follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Mr. Santa, and our next witness
    is Mr. Carl Weimer.
        Welcome back, Mr. Weimer, and he is testifying on behalf of
    the Pipeline Safety Trust where he is the executive director,
    and you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF CARL WEIMER

        Mr. Weimer. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Whitfield,
    Ranking Member Rush, and members of the committee. Thank you
    for inviting me to speak today on the important subject of
    pipeline safety.
        The Pipeline Safety Trust came into being after a pipeline
    disaster that occurred nearly 17 years ago. At that time, we
    were asked by the federal courts to create a watchdog
    organization over both the industry and the regulators. We have
    been trying to fulfill that vision ever since, but the increase
    in the number of significant incidents over the past decade
    driven primarily by releases from liquid pipelines from causes
    well within pipeline operators' control, makes us sometimes
    question whether our message is being heard.
        Today, I would like to dedicate my testimony to the memory
    of Peter Hayes who I met shortly after a Chevron pipeline
    dumped oil into Red Butte Creek in Salt Lake City. Mr. Hayes, a
    school teacher, was raising his family in a home that set on
    the banks of Red Butte Creek and he was extremely concerned
    about the possible long term health effects to the people in
    that area who were not evacuated immediately and experienced
    many different health symptoms associated with exposure to
    crude oil. He pushed hard for better emergency response and for
    someone to follow up with a study to determine whether people
    so exposed would experience any long term health problems. No
    one ever did such a study and in a tragic twist of fate, Mr.
    Hayes came down with a rare lung disease that may, in part, be
    caused by such exposure to environmental pollutants. He died
    last year.
        The need for studies on the health effects of exposure to
    oil spills has long been a void in our national pipeline safety
    system and was recently again called for by a National Academy
    of Sciences panel. Often in these hearings the focus is on how
    PHMSA has failed to implement various mandates and moved too
    slowly on regulatory initiatives. While we agree that those
    things are all important and fair game at such hearings, today
    we would like to focus our testimony on how the pipeline safety
    system that Congress has created also has much to do with
    PHMSA's inability to get things done.
        PHMSA can only implement rules that Congress authorizes
    them to enact and there are many things in the statutes that
    could be changed to remove unnecessary barriers to more
    effective and efficient pipeline safety. The pipeline safety
    statutes are the responsibility of Congress and today we will
    speak to issues where Congress needs to act if there is a real
    desire to improve pipeline safety
        Some of the things that Congress could change fairly easily
    would be to provide PHMSA with emergency order authority like
    other transportation agencies have. This would allow PHMSA to
    quickly correct dangerous industry-wide problems such as a lack
    of minimum rules for underground gas storage or the lack of
    valid verification of maximum allowable operating pressures. At
    the same time, by eliminating the unique and duplicative cost
    benefit requirement in the program statute, normal rulemakings
    could proceed at more than the current glacial speed.
        Congress also needs to harmonize the criminal penalty
    section of PHMSA's statutes so in the rare case when pipeline
    companies willfully or recklessly cause harm to people or the
    environment, they can be prosecuted as is necessary. And
    Congress should also add a strong mandamus clause as suggested
    in this committee's working draft bill to allow the federal
    courts to force PHMSA to fulfill their duties when it is the
    agency that is dragging its feet.
        As I mentioned earlier, the National Academy of Sciences
    recently completed a congressionally-mandated study that showed
    there were a number of serious issues with the way that PHMSA
    oversees spill response planning and the contents of those
    plans. We hope you will rapidly move to ensure that PHMSA is
    reviewing these plans not only for completeness, but also for
    efficacy as other agencies do and require companies to provide
    clear information so first responders know what they are up
    against.
        We also ask that you honor the memory of Peter Hayes and
    request an additional study by the National Academy of Sciences
    to help alleviate the lack of information about how to better
    protect people from the short and long term health effects of
    when pipelines fail.
        Finally, we have a few concerns with the language included
    in various reauthorization bills and hope you can address these
    concerns in your own bill. In particular, we think the wording
    in the statutory preference section of your draft bill may slow
    needed rules. We also think the language regarding underground
    gas storage needs to be clarified to ensure an open rulemaking
    process happens as soon as possible and that whatever is passed
    allows states to set stricter standards for facilities within
    their borders.
        And finally, we think the language in the Senate bill
    regarding small LNG facilities pushes PHMSA too much to rely on
    industry-developed standards and hard to enforce risk based
    systems.
        I see my time is about up, so I thank you for this
    opportunity to testify today and I would be glad to answer any
    questions now or in the future.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Weimer follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Whitfield. Mr. Weimer, thank you, and thank all of you
    for your testimony. And at this time I will recognize Mr. Olson
    of Texas for 5 minutes of questions.
        Mr. Olson. I thank the chair for his courtesies. And
    welcome to our witnesses. A special welcome to Mr. Black and
    Mr. Santa.
        As we all know, the first exports of American crude oil
    left Corpus Christi a few weeks ago and this week the first
    exports of American liquefied natural gas left Texas and
    Louisiana this week as well. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
    That is American liquid freedom going to Latin America and
    going to Europe. You guys are rock stars back home because of
    that.
        But let us talk about corrosion. In the investigation of
    the 2015 pipeline spill at Refugio Beach in California, they
    found corrosion in the pipeline. That fact should be no
    surprise. Obsolete gas pipelines and liquid pipes operate in
    tough environments. Soil corrodes. The product within the
    pipeline corrodes. And these aren't always brand-new pipes.
        As I saw in our Navy, corrosion starts from day one. In
    fact, they attack it every day with what is called a paint and
    chip detail. The young sailors have a scraper, a bucket of
    paint, and a brush and go all over the ship trying to curtail
    corrosion. It is a big challenge.
        So can you both, please, with you Mr. Black and Mr. Santa,
    discuss how you plan to control corrosion in your pipelines?
    Feel free. Big question, I know.
        Mr. Black. Corrosion may have been the biggest target of
    the modern integrity management regulations and it has been a
    success. Internal and external corrosion is down by greater
    than 50 percent. I think there is a 70 percent over 10 years
    and I am happy to get that fact for you.
        Mr. Olson. Thank you.
        Mr. Black. External corrosion has been reduced greatly by
    the practice of cathodic protection in pressing the current on
    to the pipeline and turning the pipeline into a cathode and
    anode, suffers the corrosion consequences. Internal corrosion
    has been worked on by cleaning pigs and then of course, the in-
    line inspection.
        Mr. Olson. A smart pig is right across the hall, I think,
    actually. A smart pig is there right now.
        Mr. Black. Yes, exactly. They are supposed to gather that
    information. Like you, we are concerned by what we heard in the
    PHMSA initial incident report and we are eager, as an industry
    to get the final results on that so that we can develop our
    industry-wide recommendations to operators to address
    corrosion.
        We have already committed to updating API Recommended
    Practice 1160, Pipeline Integrity Program Management, to
    address the properties related to the special type of pipe,
    heated, insulated pipe, transporting heated crude.
        Mr. Olson. Mr. Santa, natural gas people, your pipelines,
    any concerns about corrosion, but what is your biggest--what is
    your plan to deal with corrosion to control it?
        Mr. Santa. First, as Mr. Black said, I think we have a
    success story here. As a result of the Integrity Management
    Programs that were prescribed by Congress, and then PHMSA
    acting pursuant to that, corrosion incidents on interstate
    pipelines are down dramatically, as a result of the Integrity
    Management Program.
        As you noted in setting up your question, that corrosion
    has a lot more to do with the environment in which the pipeline
    exists and not necessarily the age of the pipeline, the
    important point here is a pipe, regardless of its age, to
    ensure that it is fit for service.
        As a result of fulfilling the mandates in the regulations
    on integrity management, in fact, interstate pipelines have
    tested far greater mileage than that which is mandated just
    because of the nature of where these devices are inserted and
    removed from the pipelines.
        As part of INGAA's voluntary commitments that were made in
    2011, INGAA's members committed to expanding the scope of
    integrity management practices and we also expect to see the
    expansion of integrity management addressed as part of the
    upcoming PHMSA rulemaking on natural gas transmission
    pipelines.
        Mr. Olson. So still the safest way to transport liquids is
    with pipelines pure and simple.
        Mr. Santa. Yes.
        Mr. Olson. Another question for you, Mr. Black. PHMSA is
    looking to require remotely operated automatic shutoff valves
    in pipelines in the future. GAO has done a report on that and
    found that there are some safety concerns in some cases where
    they are used on liquid pipelines. What are your thoughts on
    automatic shutoff valves and what issues do they pose for
    liquid lines?
        Mr. Black. Well, I would like to distinguish automatic
    acting from automated valves, a practice in liquid pipelines
    construction today is to use remote controlled automated valves
    to safely shutdown a pipeline in the event that the pipeline
    needs to be shut down. Self-operating, self-actuating automatic
    shutoff valves cause safety concerns. GAO found that there can
    be a pressure build up with an automatic valve closing quickly
    and that can damage the pipeline.
        We reviewed and found nine incidents caused by conditions
    similar to an automatic shutoff valve closing abruptly, one of
    which had more than 400 barrels put along the right of way. So
    remote controlled, automated shutoff valves are important to be
    used in liquids pipelines and are.
        Mr. Olson. I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time has expired. At this
    time I recognize the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Rush for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Weimer, in your
    testimony you state that reauthorization should include
    directing PHMSA to conduct a study with the National Academy of
    Sciences to better understand the potential long term health
    benefits from pipeline failures and provide recommendations for
    threshold levels in order to better inform the evacuation
    decisions and the equipment necessary to measure such
    thresholds as part of the spill response plan.
        How did you come to this conclusion and why do you think
    this issue is so important that Congress should address it in
    the upcoming reauthorization bill?
        Mr. Weimer. Yes, thank you for the question. We came to
    that conclusion from a number of sources. The recent National
    Academy of Sciences study mentioned the need for greater
    studies on both human and environmental impacts of crude oil
    spills. But we have seen it over and over again after incidents
    that have happened in the last few years. The first one that I
    became aware of was the one I mentioned in my testimony in Salt
    Lake City. A number of people and their children got quite ill
    after a spill when they weren't evacuated. There was general
    confusion at that spill of who was in charge, whether it was
    the local health department, whether they had equipment to
    measure the vapors and what people were breathing and when
    evacuation should occur. We saw similar things in Michigan
    after the big spill into the Kalamazoo River. And then in
    Mayflower, Arkansas when crude oil ran through a neighborhood
    there, we saw the types of illnesses.
        Each state seems to have different thresholds for when they
    might evacuate people. There seems to be confusion who is in
    charge in those on-going incidents of those spills and those
    same health effects. Regardless of the type of crude oil has
    led us to the desire, along with the National Academy of
    Sciences that such a study be done to clarify what equipment
    needs to be on scene, how quickly and what those thresholds
    should be measured at.
        Mr. Rush. That is pretty alarming, and it seems as though
    we are--that is a real nightmare of a thought that you have a
    pipeline rupture and not have any idea about its effect on your
    family's health. That is pretty alarming.
        Are communities around this nation, are they generally well
    informed and educated about pipeline projects and the number of
    pipelines and the capacity of things and what really is being
    transmitted through those pipelines? Are they aware about the
    benefits of these pipelines and potential costs of these
    pipelines and if they are not, then what are some of the tools
    that we can use to help spread awareness among the American
    people regarding these pipelines?
        Mr. Weimer. Yes, thank you again for that question. I think
    communities are becoming more aware. Unfortunately, the
    communities that seem to pay attention are the ones where there
    has been an incident, so it is after the fact.
        PHMSA has done a very good job, actually, putting a lot of
    information available on their Web site in trying to push out
    information, but it still hasn't sunk in. A lot of it falls on
    the industry. There is a lot of emphasis from the industry to
    work with the local communities to make sure emergency response
    and emergency plans are in place. But we need the communities
    to pay attention to that.
        There is a lot of lack of information. I am an elected
    official in the country where I am from and I have been on the
    Emergency Planning Committee. When I ask these questions about
    do we have MSDS sheets like the National Academy of Sciences
    asked for or do we have monitoring equipment that will be put
    in place quickly if there is an incident, most of the emergency
    planners in my community and other places we have checked with
    just don't have that information. So there need to be more
    proactive efforts by all of us involved to make sure local
    governments are paying attention.
        Mr. Rush. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have run out of
    time.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman's time has expired. I will
    recognize myself for 5 minutes of questions. I had asked
    Administrator Dominguez as she was leaving, what is a
    reportable incident? And I would ask those of you on the panel
    when are you required to report an incident to PHMSA? Do you
    know, Mr. Weimer?
        Mr. Weimer. It is funny that you ask that question because
    Mr. Black and I were joking about that because we are both on a
    committee with PHMSA working on indicators and there is a
    number of different reporting requirements depending--there are
    serious incidents. That is when somebody gets killed or
    hospitalized. Those number of incidents have actually been
    declining so that is a good trend. There are significant
    incidents. That is when you do $50,000 worth of damage,
    property damage, you kill or injure somebody or you spill a
    certain amount. I think it is like 50 barrels for liquid
    pipeline.
        Mr. Whitfield. Fifty barrels?
        Mr. Weimer. Fifty barrels, a couple thousand gallons. That
    would be considered a significant incident or if there is an
    explosion or fire.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK.
        Mr. Weimer. And then there are reportable incidents and I
    think that is as low as five barrels or maybe even five gallons
    for hazardous liquid pipeline.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK, so there is like three or four different
    levels, OK.
        Mr. Bradley. Those thresholds apply to natural gas as well.
    They rack up to the dollar amount.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK.
        Mr. Santa. Let me add to Mr. Bradley's point there that in
    some ways sometimes that leads to nonsensical results because
    if you think about the variability of natural gas or oil
    commodity prices, not natural gas prices.
        Mr. Whitfield. Yes.
        Mr. Santa. And if in reporting the damage you are reporting
    the dollar value of the gas that was emitted, well, that is
    going to be a far greater value when the price of gas is a
    dollar versus when it may be four dollars. So probably
    something there to ensure greater consistency to really measure
    what are the tangible dangers or effects rather than something
    that depends upon the commodity price that makes sense.
        Mr. Whitfield. And Mr. Black, how many miles of oil
    pipeline do we have in the U.S.?
        Mr. Black. One hundred ninety-nine thousand of liquids,
    oil, refined products, natural gas liquids, and CO2,
    yes, sir.
        Mr. Whitfield. And natural gas?
        Mr. Santa. Natural gas transmission pipelines, it is over
    300,000 miles, about 220,000 interstate.
        Mr. Whitfield. And how much of the crude oil that has been
    transported through pipelines is heated?
        Mr. Black. Very little.
        Mr. Whitfield. Very little?
        Mr. Black. Only if it is necessary.
        Mr. Whitfield. OK. One comment I want to make because as
    you notice, the Section 15 of our draft in parentheses they
    have got this private action of suit. And I noticed after the
    San Bruno incident, I think maybe I read this in your
    testimony, Mr. Weimer, where the City of San Francisco sued in
    federal court asking that the federal court require PHMSA to
    reject the State of California certification that the pipeline
    system met the federal standards.
        And I had a little bit of a problem with that myself
    because that is the mission of PHMSA to make sure that--so here
    you have the City of San Francisco suing the State of
    California basically, as well as the Federal Government, asking
    a federal judge to mandate that they not accept a certification
    from the state.
        So I have a real problem with Section 15 myself and the
    ``sue and settle'' for example at EPA has really been a major
    headache because what we see, third parties file the suit. They
    enter into a settlement with EPA and its lawyers or Justice and
    the states affected by those suits are not able to even
    participate in the settlements which I find unacceptable.
        And so I agree with the three of you that this is a real
    issue and having said that, I mean I am going to try to not
    include this, but having said that I have got 50 seconds left
    and I know Mr. Weimer disagrees, so I will turn it over to you
    to make your argument.
        Mr. Weimer. All right, thank you for that. Yes, we saw that
    after the California, the San Bruno incident you mentioned. I
    think the City of San Francisco and others----
        Mr. Whitfield. Is your microphone on?
        Mr. Weimer. Yes. Were pretty aghast at the way that the
    California Public Utility Commission had overseen the law over
    the past few years. There is still, I think, even criminal
    investigations going because the connections between the
    California Public Utility Commission and the industry out
    there. And that led San Francisco to file that.
        We are agnostic on the arguments that San Francisco made,
    but when we saw the federal court step in and try to throw out
    the idea that the citizens or local governments could go to
    court to try to force PHMSA to do what their jobs requires them
    to do that is when we thought it was important.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you. My time has expired. At this
    time, I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman. I thank the
    panelists for coming in here today.
        I am going to start with you, Mr. Weimer. Do you believe
    that there is adequate representation across all interested
    parties on the advisory committees at PHMSA?
        Mr. McNerney. Yes. The advisory committees are made up of
    the three groups, regulators, the public, and the industry. And
    I think the way it is designed it is pretty well, the slots
    don't always get filled in a timely manner. Like at our last
    Technical Committee meeting when we were talking about the
    liquids rule, there were still two public slots that were open,
    so it would be nice before major rules are considered if all
    the slots are filled.
        Mr. McNerney. How about the actual staff of PHMSA? Is there
    adequate staffing or is there an urgent need to fill more
    positions?
        Mr. Weimer. I think Congress has given them a huge budget
    increase that allowed them to add over a hundred new
    inspectors. That was good. And they are also working on some
    program enhancements. So I think time will tell over the next
    couple of years whether they can fill those slots and whether
    that is an adequate number.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, in your testimony you mentioned
    something about cost benefit analysis. Could you expand on that
    discussion a little bit, please?
        Mr. Weimer. Sure. I think it was back in the '90s. It might
    have been the 1996 Act. Congress put in a cost benefit
    requirement in the pipeline statute. As far as we can
    determine, this is the only administration that has kind of
    this double cost benefit, both in the statute and also then
    when the rules go to OMB. Talking with a number of people that
    do those things, they really think that can kind of slow down
    the process and as everybody on this committee has mentioned
    you know, PHMSA has been kind of slow to meet some of these. So
    since all of the rules that go to OMB have to go through a cost
    benefit, this double cost benefit analysis early on and then
    when it goes to OMB may be slowing down rules unnecessarily.
        Mr. McNerney. Would industry object if the cost benefit
    requirements were eased?
        Mr. Weimer. You would probably have to ask them.
        Mr. McNerney. Mr. Santa?
        Mr. Santa. Yes, Mr. McNerney. I would suggest that before
    the committee amend the law or propose to amend the law to
    address that that it examine whether there, in fact, have been
    any instances in which the statutory cost benefit analysis has
    added to the time and the burden. I would agree that the amount
    of time that it takes to get a rule through OMB is very
    troublesome and that that ought to be addressed and that that
    often seems to reflect the priorities of a particular
    administration that is in office where some rules go through
    very, very quickly and others get terribly bogged down.
        Mr. McNerney. Mr. Black, you said that you felt Congress
    should pass the law pretty much as it is now in the discussion
    draft form. At least that is what I understood.
        Mr. Black. Without adding significant new mandates to
    PHMSA, yes, sir.
        Mr. McNerney. So mandates. Because I was going to say
    Administrator Dominguez, her one recommendation to me was that
    they should have additional authority to react to critical
    situations. Would you agree with that or not?
        Mr. Black. Well, if PHMSA is aware of some safety
    information like the defective fittings she mentioned, we
    encourage them to get that word out as soon as possible. They
    have got that process right now through the advisory bulletin
    process and I can tell you I have seen first-hand how important
    those advisory bulletins are to the industry. I am not aware of
    any incidents that would have been avoided in the past if
    emergency order authority was in place. We are ready to look at
    a proposal, but we would think it should have a high standard.
    It should address emergency conditions that pose imminent
    threats or widespread harm, should be narrow in scope, should
    be subject to expedited review. Happy to look.
        Mr. McNerney. There is no doubt in my mind that you all and
    industry want to prevent incidents. There is no doubt in my
    mind about it and that you will take steps to do that, but I
    have a feeling that if it is left to industry, it will tend to
    be optimistic and you need a little oversight to make sure the
    optimism doesn't cause problems.
        Mr. Black. If PHMSA is aware of information like a defect,
    we want to hear about it as soon as possible. Their quickest
    way to get that information out is the advisory bulletin
    process.
        Mr. McNerney. And not only that, creating rules that--high
    standards that cause industry to have safety standards that
    prevent incidents.
        What is the typical industry response to an advisory
    bulletin by PHMSA, Mr. Black?
        Mr. Black. Read very carefully. We have industry groups,
    employees working on pipeline safety issues focusing on
    improvement and they are dissecting those very closely. We have
    got instances of advisory bulletins in the last couple of years
    that have led to operators getting that aha moment and taking
    that back to their companies.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. At this time I
    recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Latta. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. And thanks very much to
    the panel for being here today.
        Mr. Santa, if I could start with a few questions for you.
    Can you comment on how your members use the 811 Dial Before You
    Dig program and do you believe that it would be helpful to
    incorporate new technologies or best practices to improve the
    communication between the stakeholders from receipt of
    excavation notification until successful completion of the
    excavation?
        Mr. Santa. Mr. Latta, INGAA's members strongly support 811.
    One of the significant causes of pipeline incidents is
    excavation damage and so we very strongly support 811 and
    strong programs to ensure that all excavators are subject to
    such programs.
        If there are specific proposals on how via using
    technology, the effectiveness of those programs can be
    improved, I think we would be very interested in hearing that.
        Mr. Latta. Let me follow up with that. How can the Federal
    Government help advance the adoption of developing those
    technologies? Are there technologies out there that we should
    be doing, the Federal Government should be helping to advance?
        Mr. Santa. Well, PHMSA has dollars in its budget that it
    can use at its own discretion for research and development.
    Also, there is the ability to do cost-shared research and
    development with the industry since we all share the goal of
    improved pipeline safety and developing technologies that can
    prove that.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. Mr. Black, how do pipeline operators
    use in-line inspection, the so-called smart pig technology to
    find problems in their pipelines?
        Mr. Black. Well, you put this cylinder-shape robot inside
    the pipeline and push it through with the force of the liquid
    and it collects information about the properties of the
    pipeline, terabytes of information. That information is then
    taken out of the smart pig and it is analyzed by a third party
    vendor working with the pipeline operator to determine what
    features need to be investigated. They follow industry
    practices and PHMSA regulations about which features need to be
    uncovered and inspected in person by a pipeline to determine
    whether there needs to be a repair or whether it is just an
    issue that hasn't become a problem yet. The results of this
    which cost more than $2.2 billion in 2014, has been a dramatic
    decrease in corrosion-related incidents and in all types of
    incidents since modern integrity management practices were put
    into place.
        Mr. Latta. So you are saying that the technology we have
    today has really increased the ability to find those cracks
    that are out there in the pipeline?
        Mr. Black. Yes. It is finding more. That is more for
    pipeline operators and these third-party vendors to look at.
    Now the challenge is taking all of this information, finding
    out what are those true positives that need to be addressed and
    finding those issues and repairing them before they become a
    problem.
        Mr. Latta. Let me ask this also. In the draft bill that we
    have here today, there is a provision for the use of the smart
    pigs not less than once every 12 months for certain deep water
    pipelines. Is that a reasonable interval for that?
        Mr. Black. It would address pipeline water crossings of
    greater than 150. We would not support that being applied to a
    greater set of pipelines and I will explain why. Right now,
    pipeline operators are required to assess the condition of
    their pipelines and to prioritize areas based on risk.
    Determining a 1 year inspection schedule is not really
    supported by the conditions of that pipeline. It is not
    reported by what has been found. It is arbitrary. If that is to
    be expanded, we would find that it is diverting safety dollars
    from areas of greater risk.
        One year in pipeline integrity management for inspections
    is probably too soon. Any time that pipeline operator does that
    smart pig and gets that result, some features that they find
    require analysis within a year. Some are immediate. But to run
    a smart pig every year, you may not learn that much new from
    year to year.
        Mr. Latta. OK. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
    yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. At this time, the
    chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to ask a
    couple of questions of Mr. Weimer. In Ms. Dominguez' testimony,
    she requested that Congress give PHMSA emergency order
    authority. And PHMSA already has corrective action authority
    that allows it to direct a single operator to take action to
    protect life, property, and the environment. But as I
    understand it, emergency order authority would allow the
    secretary to take such action on an industry-wide basis. Seems
    like a common-sense tool for the agency to have. I am kind of
    shocked that they don't have it already.
        Could you just please talk more about this request and
    specifically what would the benefits of emergency order
    authority be for communities to which pipelines are routed? For
    instance, between 2007 and '09, pipe was being produced for
    market that did meet industry standards. In your opinion, would
    this have been a situation in which emergency order authority
    would have been helpful, just as an example?
        Mr. Weimer. Yes. Thank you for the question. I think you
    hit the point right on the nose, that there is a number of
    issues that come up that are found because of an incident on a
    specific pipeline. And PHMSA has the authority to order that
    specific pipeline to change their ways, but currently they
    don't have the authority to change, order the whole industry,
    nationwide, to change things. Whether it is pipeline that
    wasn't made to specs, that I think you were mentioning that
    came to light a few years ago, the fittings that Ms. Dominguez
    mentioned or other serious things that become obvious that it
    is a nationwide problem, at this point they have to go through
    a rulemaking that can take years as we have seen. They do have
    the ability to put out advisory bulletins like Mr. Black
    mentioned, but the industry is a broad spectrum of different
    people and while we think most of the industry pays attention
    to the advisory bulletins, there may be some within the
    industry that don't.
        Mr. Pallone. All right, thank you. And then a second topic
    deals with the TAG grants. The Pipeline Safety Information
    Technical Assistant Grants are very important to me and a
    number of members. I think you know that the grants came into
    being as a compromise in 2002 after this committee reached an
    impasse on right-to-know language for pipeline inspection data.
    And I, for one, think we still need a strong right-to-know
    provision in law. If we have that, I think it would be
    appropriate to discuss changes to the TAG grant program. The
    fact is that we don't have the right to know in the statute, so
    we need these grants in order for communities to have access to
    the technical expertise and info they need to truly understand
    pipeline risks in their area.
        A few minutes ago, my colleague, Mr. Mullin, raised some
    concerns about the TAG grants and I would like to give you a
    chance to respond to those concerns. First, does the Pipeline
    Safety Act allow TAG grants to be used for lobbying?
        Mr. Weimer. Well, I think specific to the statute, there
    are two things that are precluded from use of the money. One is
    lobbying. You are not allowed to use any of the TAG grant money
    for lobbying and you are not allowed to use it for any type of
    lawsuit against a pipeline company.
        Mr. Pallone. So the answer is no, it can't be used for
    lobbying. It can't be used for litigation.
        Mr. Weimer. Correct.
        Mr. Pallone. Is there any evidence of a widespread abuse of
    TAG grants or do the majority of such grants go for useful,
    lawful purposes?
        Mr. Weimer. Well, there has been over 160 TAG grants that
    have been let out over the course of the program. I am
    certainly not knowledgeable of all of those, but I don't know
    of any specific grants that have gone toward lobbying or
    lawsuits. Most of them have been used by local governments,
    local communities, looking at improving safety through GIS
    works, emergency response, looking at specific issues and not
    for lobbying or lawsuits.
        Mr. Pallone. My final question is by allowing communities
    to hire experts to obtain independent pipeline safety
    assessments, doesn't that help everyone, industry included, by
    ensuring that there is real, credible data out there on a
    pipeline? I mean that is what these TAG grants are all about,
    right?
        Mr. Weimer. Yes, absolutely. And we certainly have seen
    evidence of that. We were involved with a TAG grant from a
    group that got a TAG grant in California this past year and
    they had a concern about a hazardous liquid pipeline that ran
    through their community. Once we looked at the incidents from
    that pipeline and went and met with that community, we kind of
    assured them that that pipeline wasn't as big a deal as perhaps
    working with the local governments in that community to ensure
    that they are dealing with emergency response correctly. Their
    concerns for that particular pipeline were kind of overblown
    once we shared the correct information with them.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. Thanks a lot. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Whitfield. The gentleman yields back. This time I
    recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. Capps, for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all of
    our witnesses for your testimonies today. Throughout the course
    of this hearing, we have heard over and over about the need to
    maximize the safety of natural gas and hazardous liquid
    infrastructure. The truth is that far too many of us have had
    direct experience with a devastating pipeline or storage
    facility incident that has led to significant harm to public
    health, the environment, or the local economy. And in every
    case, just as it did in my district in response to the Plains
    spill this last May, these incidents highlight inadequacy in an
    existing management requirement. As we learn from these
    tragedies, it is critical that we apply this knowledge to make
    all of our communities safer.
        Mr. Weimer, you mentioned--my questions are addressed to
    you, Mr. Weimer. You mentioned in your testimony that the
    number of pipeline incidents has been steadily increasing over
    the past 10 years. Can you elaborate on a few? And I have
    several questions, so you can make it just one or two, what are
    the causes leading to this increased number that we are
    experiencing? Does the abundance of aging and outdated
    infrastructure have anything to do with the uptick in
    incidents?
        Mr. Weimer. Yes, thank you for the question. And there was
    a graph in my written testimony.
        Ms. Capps. Right.
        Mr. Weimer. That showed that the significant incidents on
    liquid pipelines has been increasing. It is again one of those
    measurement things about what are the things that make up
    incidents, but there certainly has been a rash of big incidents
    like the one that happened in your own district, the Marshall,
    Michigan spill; the one in Mayflower, Arkansas that kind of
    brought this to a head.
        The major causes, when you look at the PHMSA data are
    things within pipeline operators' control, things like use and
    operation of the pipeline, corrosion and bad equipment.
        Ms. Capps. In other words, they are preventable. As a
    follow-up, can you elaborate on how emergency order
    authorizations could help ensure that systemic issues in
    pipeline infrastructure could be responded to in a more timely
    manner? As you know, there was quite a significant time lag
    between the start of this spill and a response, even though by
    chance, emergency responders were very nearby.
        Mr. Weimer. Yes, clearly, if PHMSA had emergency order
    authority it could help in situations where they learn
    something. Like the pipeline that failed in your own district,
    there is evidence coming out now and it is not for sure yet,
    that because that was an insulated pipeline that may have
    affected that pipeline differently.
        Ms. Capps. Yes.
        Mr. Weimer. If it turns out that is the truth, an emergency
    order would allow PHMSA to correct that problem nationally.
        Ms. Capps. Exactly. Well, you have led to a topic that we
    should be addressing here in our committee.
        Now I want to turn to the need for improved response
    planning to quickly and adequately react to spills when they do
    occur. Without up to date and appropriate response plans in
    place is it possible to respond to incidents such as pipeline
    failures and spills? In your view, what must all response plans
    include and when should these plans be updated, for example, in
    response to changing conditions or new knowledge to ensure that
    they are both adequate and current? That is a big question. I
    am sorry, but you can answer quickly and then respond in
    writing for the record, if you would.
        Mr. Weimer. Sure. There is a number of things. The National
    Academy of Sciences pointed out that PHMSA mainly looks at
    these response plans for completeness, not for effectiveness.
        Ms. Capps. Right.
        Mr. Weimer. They need to change that. They need to ensure
    more testing.
        Ms. Capps. Thank you. And finally, you touched on a lack of
    stringent criminal penalties with regard to violations in
    pipeline safety. Are the current criminal and civil penalties
    regarding pipeline safety adequate to dissuade operators,
    especially the bad actors from committing violations? Can you
    elaborate on the need to expand upon existing penalties? I hope
    you can.
        Mr. Weimer. Sure. The language currently in the pipeline
    safety statute is different than what it is on the hazmat side
    for PHMSA where they include recklessness as one of the things
    that can be prosecuted. We think it should be harmonized with
    what they have on the hazmat side and with what a lot of other
    safety agencies also have.
        Ms. Capps. And again, Mr. Chairman, I hope we can follow up
    with discussion of some of these topics.
        I appreciate your answers to my questions. It is clear
    there are many avenues for improving upon existing pipeline
    regulations. It is also clear to me that we must ensure that
    PHMSA has the necessary tools to make these changes, including
    those that have yet to be implemented from the last
    reauthorization to minimize risks associated with natural gas
    and hazardous liquid infrastructure.
        Once again, I would like to reiterate that I look forward
    to continuing to work with the chairman and ranking member to
    continue to improve upon the draft that we have so that we can
    ensure that we are crafting legislation that will minimize the
    frequency and impact of all future spills and protect our
    communities. Thank you and I yield back 3 seconds.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you for yielding back 3 seconds. I
    want to thank all of you for joining us today. We look forward
    to continuing dialogue as we move forward on this legislation.
        And Mr. Saari, we didn't have a lot of questions for you,
    but we did pay attention to your testimony and do appreciate
    your bringing to the forefront the state grant issue and the
    adequate compensation to the states. And particularly in
    Michigan, I guess you all have more underground storage of
    natural gas than any state in the country is my understanding.
        But anyway, that will conclude today's hearing. We will
    keep the record open for 10 days. And I would like to enter
    into the record a statement from American Public Gas
    Association, as well as letters from Representative Capps to
    PHMSA, dated February 29, 2016, regarding the Plains pipeline
    accident in California. Without objection, it is entered into
    the record.
        And thank you all again, and that concludes today's
    hearing.
        [Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]