[Senate Hearing 114-255]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-255
PIPELINE SAFETY:
STATE AND LOCAL PERSPECTIVES
=======================================================================
FIELD HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION
AND MERCHANT MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE,
SAFETY AND SECURITY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 18, 2015
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-007PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
________________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
MARCO RUBIO, Florida CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
TED CRUZ, Texas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska CORY BOOKER, New Jersey
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TOM UDALL, New Mexico
DEAN HELLER, Nevada JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
CORY GARDNER, Colorado GARY PETERS, Michigan
STEVE DAINES, Montana
David Schwietert, Staff Director
Nick Rossi, Deputy Staff Director
Rebecca Seidel, General Counsel
Jason Van Beek, Deputy General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Clint Odom, Democratic General Counsel and Policy Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SURFACE TRANSPORTATION AND MERCHANT MARINE
INFRASTRUCTURE, SAFETY AND SECURITY
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska, Chairman CORY BOOKER, New Jersey, Ranking
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
ROY BLUNT, Missouri CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri
KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
JERRY MORAN, Kansas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DEAN HELLER, Nevada TOM UDALL, New Mexico
STEVE DAINES, Montana
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on September 18, 2015............................... 1
Statement of Senator Fischer..................................... 1
Prepared statement of MAPPS--An Association of
Photogrammetry, Mapping and Geospatial Firms............... 43
Prepared statement of the National Society of Professional
Surveyors (NSPS)........................................... 45
Letter dated September 18, 2015 to Hon. Deb Fischer, Hon.
Steve Daines and Hon. Jon Tester from Don Youngbauer,
Chairman, Yellowstone River Conservation District Council.. 46
Letter dated September 23, 2015 to Senator Steve Daines and
Senator Deb Fischer from Elena Evans, Executive Director,
Montana Association of Conservation Districts.............. 48
Statement of Senator Daines...................................... 3
Prepared statement of Hon. Ryan Zinke, U.S. Representative
from Montana-at-Large...................................... 4
Witnesses
Hon. Jon Tester, U.S. Senator from Montana....................... 6
Hon. Marie Therese Dominguez, Administrator, Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation................................................. 9
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Todd Denton, President, Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC................. 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
John Ostlund, Commissioner, Yellowstone County, Billings, Montana 21
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Michelle Slyder, Founding Member/Treasurer, Montana Liquid Gas
Pipeline Association........................................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Steve Daines to
Hon. Marie Therese Dominguez................................... 51
PIPELINE SAFETY:
STATE AND LOCAL PERSPECTIVES
----------
FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 2015
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and
Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety, and Security,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Billings, MT.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., at
Montana State University, 1500 University Drive, Billings
Library, Room 148, Billings, Montana, Hon. Deb Fischer,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Fischer [presiding] and Daines.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. Good Morning. The hearing will come to
order. I am pleased to convene this Senate Subcommittee on
Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety and
Security for our eighth hearing titled ``Pipeline Safety: State
and Local Perspectives.''
First, I would like to thank Senator Daines for hosting
this field hearing in his home state of Montana. We are pleased
to be here at Montana State University in beautiful Big Sky
Country. I also want to thank Senator Jon Tester for joining
the Committee today. He and I have shared a strong working
relationship, particularly on issues related to transportation
policy, and I look forward to working closely with both of you
as we move forward on this pipeline safety reauthorization and
other important pieces of legislation.
Finally, I would like to acknowledge the presence of the
newly confirmed Pipeline Safety and Hazardous Materials
Administrator, Marie Therese Dominguez. I was pleased to
strongly support Administrator Dominguez's nomination in the
Committee and on the floor, and I look forward to hearing more
from her today.
Today's hearing will examine the importance of pipeline
safety, particularly as it relates to rural areas. According to
PHMSA, more than 2.5 million miles of pipelines cross through
the United States. Half a million miles of pipeline transports
natural gas, oil, and hazardous materials to critical
infrastructure, including power plants, military bases,
airports, or treatment facilities. Pipelines transport
approximately 75 percent of our Nation's crude oil and 60
percent of our refined petroleum products. Accidents related to
pipeline safety are often tremendous disasters that pose harm
to the public and our sensitive natural resources.
As many of you know, in 2011, a corroded pipeline spilled
63,000 gallons of crude oil into the Yellowstone River in
Laurel, Montana. I understand that is not far from here. In
2010, a natural gas pipeline exploded in San Bruno, California,
killing eight people, injuring 60 people, and destroying 37
homes. This year in Glendive, Montana, the Poplar Pipeline
spilled nearly 30,000 gallons of crude oil into the Yellowstone
River.
Most officials and experts cite these events as among the
worst pipeline accidents in recent history. In order to protect
the safety and natural resources of Nebraskans, Montanans, and
all Americans, Congress must maintain robust oversight of PHMSA
activities. State and Federal officials must also ensure that
pipelines across the country can continue operating
efficiently. After all, pipelines are renowned as the safest
way to transport crude oil and natural gas.
As we look forward to PHMSA reauthorization, I am eager to
work closely with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, as
well as PHMSA and industry stakeholders. Together we can
establish a bipartisan, pro-safety reauthorization bill that
strengthens our Nation's pipeline network.
To begin, I am looking forward to hearing more about
PHMSA's work to fulfill the Agency's outstanding mandates from
the previous reauthorization. In the 2011 PHMSA
reauthorization, PHMSA received over 40 new mandates. To date,
they have completed well over 50 percent of its mandates, but
still have a significant amount to accomplish. I also look
forward to working with Administrator Dominguez to reprioritize
the Agency's important work in our reauthorization legislation.
With regard to staffing, I understand the Agency is
experiencing challenges competing with the private sector for
highly skilled labor. I would like to explore the ways in which
PHMSA and Congress can work together to accelerate its hiring
of field inspectors and analytical experts. In addition, I hope
to learn more about PHMSA's work with industry stakeholders on
the Agency's Risk-Based Integrity Management Assessment
Programs and pipeline inspection requirements, particularly as
it relates to high consequence areas.
In January 2015, a National Transportation Safety Board
report found that PHMSA's Integrity Management Program's
complex requirements often make compliance challenging for
pipeline operators. In its quantitative analysis, NTSB found
that although the Integrity Management Program has kept
material failures on pipelines low, there is no evidence that
the overall occurrence of gas transmission pipeline incidents
have declined.
In addition, PHMSA's inspections criteria should be
reviewed. Currently, pipeline operators must inspect pipelines
every seven years. In some instances, PHMSA's inspection
requirements may be too little, while in others too frequent. I
hope to work with PHMSA to reexamine best practices to improve
pipeline inspection and data collection requirements.
Finally, I would like to hear from PHMSA and all the
stakeholders on the importance of providing up-to-date and more
accurate information for pipeline operators and policymakers.
PHMSA should better educate stakeholders and the public,
particularly when it comes to high consequence areas, including
river crossings, drinking water aquafers, environmentally
delicate regions, and population centers.
Again, thank you all for being here today. Together I am
certain we can achieve a bipartisan, pro-safety reauthorization
to ensure the stability, efficiency, and safety of our Nation's
best network of pipeline infrastructure.
I would now like to invite Senator Daines to offer opening
remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE DAINES,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Daines. Chairman Fischer, thank you for traveling
to Montana to chair this subcommittee hearing. We often hear
about the urban/rural divide, how what works for folks in New
York City or San Francisco does not necessarily work here in
Montana. Chairman Fischer, I know you come from a ranch family.
You have a cow cap operation in a small town in Nebraska, so I
know you feel right at home here in our way of life here in
Montana.
Senator Fischer. Yes.
Senator Daines. Similarly, many of the hearings held in
D.C. are focused primarily on urban issues, and too often the
rural voice of America goes unheard. And that is why field
hearings like this are so important, and I truly appreciate my
colleague, our Chairman from Nebraska, who comes from and
understands rural America. Thank you for requesting with me
this hearing in Montana and facilitating our rural voices being
heard.
On that same note, I would like to thank Committee Chairman
John Thune, and Ranking Member Bill Nelson for scheduling our
request for this hearing. If you take a look at the makeup of
the Commerce Committee today in the U.S. Senate, there is a
strong showing of western and rural states. We have a great
team that does understand rural issues.
Senator Tester, thanks for joining us today. I appreciate
that we have been able to work together on these issues,
including introducing an appropriations amendment addressing
pipeline river crossings. And for that, I thank you. I also
note Congressman Ryan Zinke also wanted to be here to put a
statement for the record. However, the House is in session
today. They are voting today, and I want to thank him for his
support for constructing pipelines to promote job creation and
energy independence and safety. He is also a good partner to
work with.
Chairman Fischer, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
have Congressman Zinke's written statement entered into the
record.
Senator Fischer. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ryan Zinke,
U.S. Representative from Montana-at-Large
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, Senator Fischer, Senator Daines,
and Members of the Committee:
I wish to offer my sincere thanks for your willingness to host a
hearing here in my great state of Montana about pipeline safety efforts
at the state and local levels. While I am sorry I cannot be there in
person to participate, this issue is a top concern for many of my
constituents and I am honored to share my perspective on this issue.
Pipeline infrastructure, particularly across Eastern Montana, is a
critical method to transport crude, natural gas, gasoline, propane, and
other energy and chemical resources across the country. With roughly
15,000 miles of pipelines that traverses the state, which is a small
portion of our Nation's 2.5 million miles of pipeline, these pipes
offer enormous benefits for consumers and businesses. In my mind,
safety is at the very top of the list.
Data has shown that compared to trains or trucks, pipelines are a
far safer method of transport. When looking at the amount of spillage
and the overall rate of accidents, there is minimal comparison; pipes
have a lower probability of spill incidents. This is why I support the
creation of additional pipelines. According to the Association of Oil
Pipelines, in 2013, 8.3 billion barrels of crude oil were moved via
pipeline, compared to 291 million barrels of oil by rail. Further
shifting the energy supply transports to pipes would allow the rail
industry to provide additional support to other important industries in
Montana, such as agriculture or manufacturing.
Our pipeline infrastructure is at a crossroads. Despite its immense
importance, much of the existing infrastructure is outdated and in
desperate need of reform. Even though pipelines are exponentially
safer, accidents still happen. The incident in Glendive, Montana, that
occurred in January of this year illustrates that work still needs to
be done. We must look into revamping our safety and monitoring systems
as our energy and pipeline industries continue to expand. Our nation's
growth potential must be matched by a world-class infrastructure system
that keeps Montanans and our Nation safe.
However, I applaud the local, state, and Federal agencies who
responded to the Glendive spill. Their collaboration minimized the
impacts and protected the environment from further damage. Within
twenty-four hours of the break, all involved agencies were on the scene
accessing the situation and developing an action plan for the quickest
cleanup. Because of the rapidness and effectiveness of the conjoined
response effort, the spill was contained and isolated. Six months
later, tests are showing a clean bill of health for the river.
We need to continue to learn from these successful coordination
efforts that help minimize impacts on natural resources, adequately
involve entities and communities in an efficient and timely manner, and
protect health and human safety. You will hear of other examples of
triumphs and failures during today's hearing, but I treat these as
valuable learning experiences. My hope is that by investing in
infrastructure updates and improvements, as well as creating innovative
methods to effectively evaluate pipelines, our local and state entities
will have far fewer accidents and increased economic growth.
I believe it is incredibly important to have these conversations as
we move toward appropriate legislative action and look forward to
hearing the testimonies of the participants.
Senator Daines. Chancellor Mark Nook and his team here at
MSU-Billings, thank you for hosting this field hearing and
providing this excellent facility. This is a place that my mom
attended many, many years ago. Your staff has been a pleasure
to work with, including providing great AV support. And as we
all know, you are usually only as good as your AV support, and
I thank you for that.
I have a little different background perhaps than many in
Congress. I spent 28 years in the private sector after
graduating from Montana State University-Bozeman as a chemical
engineer. In fact, I think I am the only chemical engineer in
Congress. Do not hold that against me. I know many other great
engineers get their start right here in the Montana State
University system. Many of these engineers have gone on to
design, construct, operate, and inspect the pipeline
infrastructures that we are here to discuss today.
Earlier this week, we had a biannual Montana High Tech jobs
summit in Bozeman. We have bright students with an unparalleled
work ethic, matched with access to the great landscapes and
quality of life we have here in Montana and our abundant
natural resources which has made Montana an attractive place
for high-tech jobs. This unique environment has enabled
Montanans to lead in innovation and play an instrumental role,
an important role, in increasing the safety and efficiency of
our infrastructure. Technology has also allowed our pipelines
to become more advanced, to become safer, and to become more
efficient. I am looking forward to exploring these gains during
today's meeting.
Thanks also to our witnesses. I appreciate you joining us
in Billings today and testifying on this very important issue.
I first want to recognize our two Montana witnesses,
Yellowstone County Commissioner Ostlund of Billings and Ms.
Slyder from Edgar, Montana. Commissioner, thank you for your 12
years of public service. Ms. Slyder, I appreciate having
another Montana engineer at the table. ``Environmental
engineer'' just sounds better than ``chemical engineer,'' so
congratulations, although we had to study all the same topics.
I look forward to hearing from both of you about your
professional experiences working with and around the pipelines
of our state. Thanks for the work that you do for the people of
Montana and for being here speaking up for our state.
Ms. Dominguez, welcome to Montana. It is a pleasure seeing
you here again. I understand this is your first testimony since
your confirmation of PHMSA--as a PHMSA administrator. Thank you
for accepting the invitation and joining us today to discuss
safety, discuss jobs, and PHMSA's role right here in Montana. I
hope you have a little extra time to enjoy some of our great
beauty.
Mr. Denton, thank you for traveling to Montana to provide
the perspective as a pipeline operator here in Montana. I am
grateful we have Montanans at the table here today with both
industry leaders and folks from Washington to ensure that the
Montana voice is heard. We need Washington to look a little
more like Montana, and that is best accomplished when we have
decisionmakers come to the states to listen as well as to
learn.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration,
also known as PHMSA, plays a very important role here in
Montana, and is vital to ensuring the safe and environmentally
sound transportation of our natural resources. PHMSA's
jurisdiction covers approximately 2.16--2.6 million miles of
pipeline across our Nation, nearly 19,000 miles here in Montana
alone.
This infrastructure, along with highways, railroads,
airports, is an economic bloodline for our state because
Montana produces approximately 30 million barrels of crude oil,
63 billion cubic feet of gas, and 42 million short tons of coal
annually, and we export 60 percent of this energy. The oil and
gas industries directly employ 7,500 Montanans, 862 just in
pipeline construction. In total supports the employment of over
43,000 Montanans; in fact, 6.7 percent of Montana's total
employment.
In Montana, we know firsthand the potential that exists
from investing in more energy infrastructure. The Keystone
Pipeline alone would create an additional 4,000 jobs nationwide
and approximately 800 jobs for us right here in Montana. That
would double the current number of pipeline construction jobs
in Montana alone.
The oil and gas industries contribute $4.5 billion to our
economy. That is over 10 percent of Montana's economic
activity. These are good-paying jobs. Because our average
salary in Montana is just under $40,000, the average oil and
gas industry salary in Montana is over double that at $81,000.
Additionally, Montana's oil and gas industries provide nearly
half a billion dollars in state and local tax revenues. That is
helping support our schools, our teachers, and our
infrastructures. And pipelines alone paid $72 million in
property taxes to the State of Montana just last year.
During my preparation for this hearing, it was impossible
not to reflect on this year's and 2011's pipeline releases into
the Yellowstone River. Speaking as somebody who just fished the
Yellowstone River two weeks ago, I am grateful for the efforts
of both industry and of government to quickly respond to clean
up the spills, investigate what went wrong, and institute
measures to improve safety and prevent recurrence. By finding
out what went wrong in these incidents, we can implement some
common sense reforms to prevent similar occurrences in the
future.
One of the challenges we have discussed and we will explore
more today around PHMSA's hiring practices is the lack of
pipeline inspectors in Montana. I want to thank you,
Administrator, for working to hire a second pipeline inspector
in Montana. I was excited to discuss this new position earlier
this month with you, and appreciate PHMSA's taking steps to
ensure resources are available to ensure the continued
inspection of Montana's pipelines. Thank you.
Pipelines remain the safest way of transporting liquid and
gas resources. According to a recent study, pipelines are up to
40 times safer than on our roads. It is imperative to our state
that these energy products continue to be moved safely, to be
moved efficiently.
Congress plays an important role in the oversight of this
infrastructure, and PHMSA--with PHMSA's authorization expiring,
I have been working closely with the Senate Commerce Committee
on legislation to reauthorize PHMSA. Your experiences, your
ideas for improvement is critical as we begin drafting this
legislation. Thank you.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Daines. Next, it is my
great pleasure to welcome my friend, Senator Tester, from the
great state of Montana, and I invite him to give testimony
before the Committee.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. Well, thank you, Chairman Fischer, and
thank you for allowing me to be a part of this hearing. I
appreciate you making the trip to Billings to Big Sky Country.
I know it was not an easy trek for you. Steve and I happened to
make the flight. She did not, but she got in here two hours
earlier, so God works in mysterious ways.
I also want to thank Senator Daines for his leadership on
the pipeline issues. Senator Daines, we have worked together in
the past, and I look forward to working together in the future
to bolster pipeline safety across the Nation, and particularly
in the great state of Montana.
You know, I also want to thank the folks on the second
panel for their testimony, or third panel, however you want to
read this. I think it is critically important when we talk
about pipeline safety that we get as many players as possible
to the table to talk about what the challenges are and how can
work more effectively together. And Administrator Dominguez,
thank you very much. We look forward to reading your testimony.
It goes without saying, we rely on pipelines to transport a
wide array of important products across this country. And while
pipelines are the most efficient and safest way of
transportation, they also pose risks to Montana's clean air,
and clean water, and to our safety. Oil is a critical resource,
but water is more valuable. It is our responsibility to keep
our pipelines safe, grows in size and scope every year as our
infrastructure ages, and our oil and gas production increases.
We know this all too well in Montana. We have experienced
two major spills, as has been pointed out previously. The
Yellowstone River--the first spill, was back in 2011 when an
Exxon-Mobil pipeline ruptured. Sixty-three thousand gallons
went in the river about 20 miles upstream from here. At the
time, the river was flooding out of its banks, and that oil
extended downstream some 70 miles from the spill site. And in
January of this year, a pipeline ruptured near Glendive,
spilling about 30,000 gallons of oil into the Yellowstone
River, shutting down the Glendive water system for a relatively
short period of time due to the spill.
In a recent--in a recent report to Congress, PHMSA found
that erosion created exposed pipelines, and that was a factor
in at least 16 significant incidents between 1991 and 2012,
including the oil spill that I spoke of that happened in July
2011. We need to do more to address the unique challenges of
river crossings. Fast-moving water and erosion can change the
characteristics of rivers rapidly, exposing these pipelines and
making them susceptible to rupture.
Given the importance of safeguarding our waterways, I
really need to know whether we are doing enough to monitor the
spill response plans of pipeline owners and operators. It is
important that we hold PHMSA to the highest standards, but
ultimately the owners and operators of these pipelines need to
be an important part of the equation when it comes to
maintenance and upgrades to ensure that spills that, by the
way, make nobody any money, happen rarely.
We must also make sure that our first responders and the
communities have the appropriate information to do their jobs
and manage the risk responses. And I hope Commissioner Ostlund
can speak to that.
I also need more information about real-time monitoring
during flood events, and if PHMSA utilizes river data from
other agencies, like the USGS. Today I expect PHMSA will
communicate about their efforts to bring new pipeline
inspectors on board, so we applaud those efforts. In 2014, we
supported an effort to greatly expand the number of inspectors
in PHMSA's Pipeline Safety Division. More inspectors will allow
the Agency to prevent future incidents, and that is going to
save money. That is going to help everybody be more profitable.
I know hiring and training a new workforce can be extremely
difficult, and I look forward to the progress update on the
hiring process and how Congress can continue to help you do
your job, Administrator. Montana has a tremendous work force,
and we have got great schools to train folks. I look forward to
working with you, Administrator Dominguez, to see how the
Agency can partner with people in our State, including this
university, to get good people on the ground, keeping an eye on
our infrastructure.
As this hearing unfolds, I hope we will address what we
learned from the previous two spills, what can be used on
future spills. I hope we will address the oversight of older
pipelines. Is it greater or less? The chairman talked about
every 7 years the pipelines need to be inspected. Sometimes
that is too long; sometimes that is too less. She is absolutely
correct.
We need to talk about river crossings. What happens in
flood events? We need to find out if our partners are working
with us and we are working with them. Critically important. And
communication, and the communication not only between oil and
gas companies and pipeline companies, but also our local
governments and commissioners. Very, very important. And in the
case of a spill, who is driving the bus? Who has--who is the
lead Agency? Who do we go to find out if things are going in
the right direction?
Look, Montana is a great place to live. I hope, Madam
Chair, that Senator Daines has the opportunity to take you out
on the Yellowstone, maybe fishing. Bow hunting season is on.
But the fact is you are probably like us. You are probably gone
this afternoon, and that is unfortunate because we do have a
great State. We like to think it is better than Nebraska. You
may have a different opinion.
But we must do everything we can to make sure that we have
energy that is dependable, predictable, affordable, safe, and
does the things for our economy to allow our outdoor industry
to be able to flourish, some $6 billion and 64,000 jobs in that
industry also. So I am committed to working with Administrator
Dominguez, Senator Daines, and you, Madam Chair, to make sure
that our kids inherit the best world we can give them.
Thank you very, very much for this opportunity to testify.
I will be reading the--what do they call it?
Senator Daines. Transcript.
Senator Tester. The transcript. That is it, the transcript.
And finally, and least, but not least, I thank you all for
being here. I think it shows the importance of this issue to
people of the State of Montana. Thank you.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Tester. We are all so
fortunate to live in the states that we do live in. They are
beautiful states. The people are wonderful, and it is a
pleasure to be here in Montana. Thank you, sir, for being here.
At this time, I would ask that our panel please come
forward. Welcome, and thank you all for being here. We are so
fortunate today to have four really great panel members that
are going to offer us testimony and then respond to questions.
We will begin with Marie Therese Dominguez. She is the
Administrator of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration. PHMSA's mission is to protect people and the
environment from the risks inherent in transportation of
hazardous materials by pipeline and other modes of
transportation.
Ms. Dominguez most recently served as Principal Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works. As Principal
Deputy, she provided policy direction and performance oversight
for the Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Programs, focused
on water resources, conservation and development, navigation,
flood control, hydroelectric power generation, and outdoor
recreation.
Welcome, and we would look forward now to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIE THERESE DOMINGUEZ,
ADMINISTRATOR, PIPELINE AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS SAFETY ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Ms. Dominguez. Chairwoman Fischer, Senator Daines, thank
you very much for inviting me to testify about the
reauthorization of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, otherwise known as PHMSA.
Our program oversees the safe transportation of hazardous
materials through the Nation's 2.6 million miles of energy
pipelines. I would also thank Senator Tester and Senator Daines
for welcoming me very humbly to the State of Montana. I am
always happy to visit Big Sky Country, and you served up some
beautiful weather, so thank you very much.
I want to express my gratitude to both of you for
confirming my nomination in August. Two months ago I testified
before you as the nominee for PHMSA Administrator, and thanks
to your support, I am honored to testify before you now as the
Administrator to discuss our strategy for enhancing pipeline
safety amid rapid industry growth.
When I last testified before you, I told you my goal was to
make PHMSA synonymous with safety, trust, and innovation.
Safety is our mission, and it is at the heart and at the core
of everything that we do. To achieve this mission, we need a
strong foundation of trust with our partners in the States, the
regulated industry, Congress, and, above all, with the American
people. And to be an effective regulatory and enforcement
agency amid rapid change, we must be innovative.
Since my confirmation, we have undertaken a number of
initiatives to advance our safety mission and culture of trust,
and ensure that the Agency is structured for the future. To
that end, I was notified this morning that the Office of
Management and Budget has completed their review of PHMSA's
proposed rule on hazardous liquid pipelines which we have had
pending, and they are preparing for notice of publication in
the Federal Register some time hopefully in the next week or
so. The proposed regulations will result in critical safety
improvements, and we hope that they will spark a robust
dialogue moving forward about pipeline safety in the United
States.
More broadly, I have initiated an organizational assessment
of PHMSA. Through this assessment, we will work to optimize our
regulations, enforcement authority, and internal processes to
ensure that PHMSA is structured to be responsive and drive
innovation that enhances our safety mission.
In addition, PHMSA is the first USDOT modal administration
to develop and begin implementing an Agency Safety Action Plan,
or ASAP. The ASAP is led by the Secretary of Transportation,
and it is a really important effort across the Department to
proactively identify ways we can improve safety. It is really
asking the question, how can we better leverage our current
authorities and our capabilities to improve safety. As part of
the Agency Safety Action Plan, PHMSA is seeking ways to assist
with and incentivize high performance among our state partners.
And we look forward to working with the Congress to make our
State partners as effective as possible.
Montana is one example of PHMSA's strong coordination with
State partners, which is ever more important as the industry
expands. The recent spills in Montana are unacceptable, and
they underscore the importance of PHMSA's safety mission and
the need to work with our state and industry partners to push
for improvements that mitigate risk and prevent future
incidents.
PHMSA continues to investigate January's Bridger pipeline
oil spill. After launching a comprehensive investigation, PHMSA
issued a corrective action order to that operator. In late
April, Bridger received approval from PHMSA to replace its
pipeline with a new horizontal directional drilled pipeline
crossing, and allowing it to remove service--excuse me--resume
service. We will pursue additional enforcement actions if it is
determined that the operator violated any Federal pipeline
regulations.
In the wake of the Bridger spill and the 2011 Exxon-Mobil
spill, PHMSA has been working closely with the Montana
government and pipeline operators to ensure necessary steps are
taken to safeguard pipeline water crossings. These efforts are
yielding measurable results for Montana. Since mid-2011, 17
pipeline crossings of major rivers have been replaced with HDD
pipelines. Of the 64 major river crossings in Montana, 41 are
now directionally drilled.
There is more work to do. Thanks to resources provided by
Congress, PHMSA is growing by 25 percent. Hiring and training
Federal and State inspectors is of the utmost importance as we
expand our workforce. We are committed to strategically using
the resources that Congress has granted us to invest in our
inspection and enforcement capabilities, work to say ahead of
industry trends, strengthen our partnerships, and ensure the
highest safety standards.
I look forward to working with you as PHMSA leads the way
in driving our State partners in industry toward a pipeline
network that is known for safety, trust, and innovation.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dominguez follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Marie Therese Dominguez, Administrator,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation
I. Introduction
PHMSA's reach is vast, but the mission is concise: to protect
people and the environment from the risks of hazardous materials
transportation in all modes, including the 2.6 million miles of
pipeline nationwide. This safety mission is what drives our talented
team of experts and professionals, and it is what drives me in my
commitment to make PHMSA the premier safety organization in
transportation.
The American energy industry is rapidly changing, growing and
expanding. As such, PHMSA is at a pivotal juncture; as a regulator, it
is critical for PHMSA to keep pace with and anticipate industry trends
and make sure that, along with growth, there is a commitment to the
highest safety standards--a commitment that the American public can
count on.
Thanks to resources provided by Congress, PHMSA is growing by 25
percent. Hiring and training Federal and state inspectors is of the
utmost importance as PHMSA expands its workforce. As it carries out
this hiring surge and looks ahead to reauthorization of the pipeline
safety program, PHMSA is committed to strategically using the resources
Congress has granted us to stay ahead of industry trends, strengthen
state partnerships and ensure the highest safety standards.
The goal is to make PHMSA synonymous with safety, trust and
innovation. Safety is PHMSA's mission and is at the core of everything
the agency does. To achieve this mission, PHMSA needs a strong
foundation of trust with partners in the states, the regulated
industry, and Congress--and, above all, with the American people. And
to be an effective regulatory and enforcement agency amid rapid change,
it is critical to be innovative and nimble. In recent months, PHMSA has
undertaken a number of initiatives to advance its safety mission and
culture of trust, and ensure that the agency is structured for the
future.
First, PHMSA is undergoing an organizational assessment. Through
this assessment, the agency will work to optimize its regulations,
enforcement authority and internal processes to ensure that it is
structured to be responsive and drive innovation that enhances the
safety mission.
In addition, PHMSA is the first USDOT modal administration to
develop and begin implementing an Agency Safety Action Plan, or ASAP.
ASAP is led by the Secretary of Transportation and is an effort across
the Department to proactively identify ways to improve safety. It's
asking the question: How can PHMSA better leverage current authorities
and capabilities to improve safety?
These efforts will help PHMSA to utilize the resources provided by
Congress to create greater efficiency in its structure and program
execution, improve data collection and utilization, mitigate risk and
advance safety.
The PHMSA team looks forward to working with Congress as the agency
leads the way in driving state partners and industry toward a
nationwide pipeline network that is known for safety, trust and
innovation.
II. Pipeline Safety: Toward Zero Incidents
PHMSA does not accept death, injury, or environmental harm as an
inevitable consequence of transporting hazardous materials, and the
agency drives toward the goal of zero pipeline incidents. When
incidents do occur, PHMSA investigates the root cause of the incident
and, if any Federal regulations were violated, levies civil penalties.
In addition, Corrective Action Orders (CAO) can require the operator to
identify and address the root cause of the incident before they are
allowed to return the pipeline to service. The requirements outlined in
the CAO can take months or years to implement and can require the
operator to make system-wide investments that improve safety.
In January 2015, when a pipeline in Glendive, Montana, spilled as
much as 1,200 barrels of crude oil into the Yellowstone River, PHMSA
launched a comprehensive investigation into the cause of the spill. A
team of technically-skilled inspectors deployed to the scene in
Glendive and the Bridger Pipeline Company's control room in Casper,
Wyoming, to ensure the operator took all necessary steps to prevent any
additional damage as a result of the pipeline failure.
In addition to launching an investigation of the Glendive spill,
PHMSA immediately issued a CAO to the Bridger Pipeline Company,
directing it to take a number of immediate and long-term actions to
verify that the pipeline was safe to resume operation. In late April,
Bridger tested and, after receiving approval from PHMSA's Western
regional office, replaced the faulty pipeline with a new horizontal
directional drilled (HDD) pipeline crossing under the Yellowstone River
and resumed service. HDD is a method that allows pipes to be installed
with minimal environmental impacts and at depths that may help reduce
the likelihood of failure due to river scouring.
In 2011, when the ExxonMobil Pipeline Company's Silvertip pipeline
in Laurel, Montana released 1,509 barrels of crude oil into the
Yellowstone River, PHMSA issued a Corrective Action Order that directed
the operator to complete numerous safety improvements, including the
replacement of river crossings across three major Montana rivers with a
deeper HDD pipeline to reduce exposure from erosion and help ensure
long-term safety. ExxonMobil reported spending $34 million to comply
with the CAO--above and beyond the $1 million civil penalty issued by
PHMSA. On June 12th of this year, PHMSA denied ExxonMobil Pipeline
Company's petition for reconsideration of PHMSA's Final Order and civil
penalty.
PHMSA is employing a similar investigative strategy in response to
the May 19, 2015, Plains Pipeline, LP oil spill in Santa Barbara,
California. Following the spill, PHMSA immediately deployed an
investigative team to the scene and an investigator to Plains' Midland,
Texas control room to review operational information and data. Plains
reported that the failure resulted in the release of 3,400 barrels of
crude oil, some of which reached the Pacific Ocean. Investigation by
Federal and state agencies continues as to the volume of oil spilled,
the miles of beaches impacted, and other impacts to the environment. On
May 21, PHMSA issued a Corrective Action Order to Plains with a set of
instructions and requirements for mitigating the hazards and restoring
safety conditions, operations and culture. The order includes an
ongoing metallurgical analysis as well as third-party review of
previous internal inspections carried out by the operator. The affected
pipeline remains shut down pending completion of an extensive integrity
analysis. PHMSA will not allow the line to return to operation until
the operator has taken satisfactory actions to mitigate potential
risks.
The investigations for both the Glendive and Santa Barbara
incidents are still in progress, and PHMSA will pursue additional
enforcement actions if it is determined that either operator violated
any Federal pipeline safety regulations. These spills highlight the
need for continuous improvement and commitment to safety by PHMSA,
state partners and operators.
III. Leveraging State Partnerships to Mitigate Risk
The recent oil spills in Montana and California are unacceptable
and unfortunate, and they underscore the importance of PHMSA's safety
mission and the need to learn from these incidents and work together
with state partners to push for improvements that mitigate risk and
prevent future incidents. Montana is one example of PHMSA's strong
coordination with state partners, which is ever more important as the
industry expands.
For example, following the 2011 ExxonMobil spill, PHMSA conducted a
joint study with the Montana Governor's Oil Pipeline Safety Review
Council. The joint study revealed that many of Montana's pipeline water
crossings could be threatened by river flooding and channel migration.
PHMSA has been working closely with Montana's Departments of
Environmental Quality, Natural Resources and Transportation, as well as
Montana pipeline operators, to ensure that necessary steps are taken to
safeguard existing crossings. These steps include: in-place safety
procedures during flood conditions or increased river flow rates;
increased frequency of patrols and depth of cover surveys during and
after significant river-flow events; swift remediation measures, if
needed; strengthening emergency response preparedness; and replacing
trenched crossings with HDD pipelines.
While HDD pipelines are a critical and successful tool, operators
must take a comprehensive approach to improving safety. In addition to
the HDD pipeline installations, PHMSA has worked with Montana to
establish more robust safety procedures for hazardous liquid pipeline
operators in the state. The point of our Integrity Managements
regulations is that all operators of pipelines located in
environmentally sensitive areas (``High Consequence Areas'') such as
river crossings must carefully monitor their systems and take extra
precautions to prevent and mitigate the potential impacts of accidents
in such areas.
Furthermore, on April 9, 2015, PHMSA issued an advisory bulletin to
ensure operators were aware of the inherent risks associated with river
crossings and remind them of the need to take extra steps to protect
such environmentally sensitive areas.
These efforts are yielding measurable results for Montana. Since
the 2011 ExxonMobil spill, 17 pipeline crossings of major rivers (>100
feet wide) in Montana have been replaced with HDD pipelines. Of the 64
major river crossings in Montana, 41 now utilize HDD methods.
This kind of progress shows the need for strong state relationships
across the country to stay ahead of industry and pipeline safety
trends. States' input and experience is critical as PHMSA sets public
policy, strategically allocates resources, and moves forward with new
regulations. Likewise, PHMSA plays an important role in supporting
capacity-building and enforcement of high standards nationwide. Through
agreements and certifications, states assume authority over more than
80 percent of intrastate gas and hazardous liquid distribution and
transmission pipelines by inspecting and enforcing both Federal and
state regulations. PHMSA's efforts to support pipeline safety also
include providing grant funding to support state damage prevention
programs and technical assistance related to pipeline safety issues.
A key resource available to support states is the State Base Grant
program, which can increase the capacity for inspection and compliance.
Last year, PHMSA provided Montana with more than $160,000 in grant
funding--amounting to 118 inspection days. Over the past 10 years,
PHMSA grants have provided more than $650,000 to Montana. PHMSA
recently announced an estimated $214,000 to Montana to help cover the
costs of its natural gas pipeline safety program for the 2015 calendar
year. PHMSA also provides Technical Assistance Grants to Montana--
$49,600 in total funding from PHMSA since 2009.
PHMSA has provided significant support to Nebraska as well. Last
year, PHMSA provided $255,000 in grant funding to Nebraska--amounting
to 373 inspection days. Over the past 10 years, PHMSA grant funding to
Nebraska totaled more than $1.6 million. Last week, PHMSA announced an
estimated $347,000 to help cover the costs of Nebraska's natural gas
pipeline safety program for the 2015 calendar year.
As part of the Agency Safety Action Plan, PHMSA is seeking ways to
assist with and incentivize high performance among state partners, and
looks forward to working with Congress to make its state partners as
effective as possible.
IV. PHMSA Hiring Surge: A Workforce to Address Evolving Safety
Challenges
The FY 2015 Omnibus provided PHMSA's pipeline safety program with
109 new positions, 80 percent of which will be in the inspection and
enforcement areas. These additional inspectors will allow PHMSA to
increase its pipeline inspection regimen and improve oversight of
interstate hazardous liquid and gas pipeline operations in Montana,
Nebraska and across the country.
PHMSA has an aggressive strategy underway to recruit, hire and fill
these positions as quickly as possible. The majority of these positions
will consist of inspectors and enforcement personnel to be located
across our five regional offices to oversee operators' pipeline safety
programs, conduct critical inspections and accident investigations, and
participate in spill response activities. Twelve of these new positions
will be allocated to the Western regional office, which is responsible
for the State of Montana.
One challenge is that PHMSA competes directly with industry to fill
these positions. The engineers and transportation specialists who are
the target candidate pools for these positions are highly sought after
by the expanding U.S. oil and gas industries that PHMSA regulates. It
is difficult to match not only industry salaries, but also the speed
with which industry is able to hire.
To address these challenges, PHMSA is pursuing a comprehensive
strategy to encourage talented people to seek careers in public
service. PHMSA uses hiring authorities and pay flexibilities such as
the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act and the Veterans' Recruitment
Appointment; recruitment, relocation and retention incentives; and the
student loan repayment program. PHMSA is seeking Direct Hire Authority.
The agency posts vacancy announcements on social media (Twitter and
LinkedIn); conducts outreach to professional organizations and veterans
groups; and attends career fairs and on-campus hiring events. PHMSA
also plans to explore creating new partnerships with colleges and
universities with engineering programs.
As the workforce increases, training is critical to achieve the
highest possible level of safety. Hiring and training Federal and state
inspectors is of the utmost importance as PHMSA expands its workforce
by 25 percent from increased appropriations. Enhanced training
opportunities for both Federal and state inspectors include tailored
training for inspectors, finding the right mix between classroom and
distance learning to alleviate travel challenges.
V. Data-driven Regulation
PHMSA's priorities and activities are guided by three strategic
principles: Safety, Trust and Innovation. It is PHMSA's responsibility
to use its regulatory and enforcement authority effectively to assure
all Americans that, even as the industrial landscape changes, safety is
a constant.
Completing all Congressional mandates is critical to PHMSA's
pipeline safety program, allowing the agency to meaningfully strengthen
its oversight program. PHMSA has completed 26 of the 42 mandates
contained in the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job
Creation Act of 2011.
For example, in 2013 PHMSA completed section 28 of the Pipeline
Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011, which
directed the agency to conduct a water crossings study to determine if
the depth of cover over buried pipelines was a factor in any accidental
release of hazardous liquids.
PHMSA has a plan in place to address the remaining open mandates
and is working diligently to do so. Four mandates were addressed this
year by reporting to Congress on the potential extension of existing
regulations to unregulated gathering lines, submitting the first of two
reports to Congress on the Research & Development program, offering
maintenance-of-effort waivers to states for FY 14, and implementing
continued improvements to the Facility Response Program.
The hard work continues. The damage prevention final rule was
published on July 23; the rule goes into effect on January 1, 2016.
With the support of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), over the
summer PHMSA issued two proposed rules on expansion of excess-flow
valve requirements, and updated incident notification requirements for
pipeline operators and operator qualification. The Operator
Qualification, Cost Recovery and Accident Notification proposed rule
addresses two mandates from the 2011 Act--the requirement that
operators notify the National Response Center of an incident as soon as
practicable, but not more than one hour after confirmed discovery, and
the authorization for PHMSA to recover costs for pipeline design
reviews.
PHMSA is working to publish its proposed natural gas transmission
and hazardous liquid rules by the end of this calendar year, and is
working diligently within the Department and with OMB to meet this
goal. These rules will improve pipeline safety significantly in
Montana, Nebraska and nationwide.
The rulemaking process is methodical to ensure that new rules are
effective, efficient, and reflect feedback from all stakeholders. In
addition to working to advance the gas and liquid rules, PHMSA is
working to balance representation on the gas and liquid pipeline
technical advisory committees to ensure that their recommendations are
borne out of balanced and robust conversations. There are obvious
challenges in getting there; membership in the advisory committees
changes, due in part to new appointments, retirements and career
changes. In the last 24 months, PHMSA has lost 8 members representing
the government and public sectors. It is important to rebalance these
committees again to benefit and protect the American public from
pipeline transportation risks.
To assist with future rulemaking efforts and the broader safety
mission, PHMSA has initiated an agency-wide data assessment. The
assessment will evaluate PHMSA's data and analytical needs and review
the current status of data, technology systems, and skills of the PHMSA
workforce. It will then develop a gap analysis and comprehensive
strategy to become a predictive, data-driven, risk based regulatory
development and enforcement safety agency.
PHMSA continuously works to develop new ways to mitigate risk with
one aspirational goal in mind: zero deaths, injuries, environmental and
property damage, and transportation disruptions related to hazmat
transportation. Serious pipeline incidents have declined an average of
10 percent every three years since 1988, despite increased energy
production, aging infrastructure, and increased pipeline mileage.
To sustain this safety record, PHMSA is positioning to be more
predictive, in order to anticipate the risks of the future and drive
innovation that enhances the safety mission. Research and development
is vital to that effort.
PHMSA conducts R&D in partnership with industry, universities, and
other stakeholders, working together to identify gaps in current
technology and reach consensus on the sector's most pressing
challenges. PHMSA's investments have contributed to new pipeline
technologies entering the market, including above-ground, radar-based
pipeline mapping and a nondestructive testing method for unpiggable
pipelines. In addition to these collaborative R&D efforts, PHMSA
conducts R&D in the public interest to enhance our rulemaking efforts
and our safety mission.
VI. Data-sharing Need
Of the 2.6 million miles of pipeline within the United States,
states monitor 80 percent. Yet the information the states gather
through inspections and enforcement activities is not shared between
states or with PHMSA. Linking state and Federal inspection,
enforcement, and geospatial data, and providing a consolidated national
view of all pipeline data, is a vital component in identifying current
and emerging risks that drive improved safety performance and informed
regulations. To that end, PHMSA has consistently requested a nationwide
integrated database of pipeline inspection and enforcement data.
This nationwide integrated database will close important gaps in
the inspection, enforcement and remediation of unsafe pipelines and
their operators with two important elements. First, it will share the
safety inspection records by operator and by element of the inspection
and communicate those results to all impacted inspectors in states with
common operators and common practices. Simply put, a dangerous practice
or pipeline element found in one location will be communicated quickly
to all inspectors and operators that would have an interest in the
condition identified in order to avoid environmental damage and
disasters in and around our communities. Second, this database will
plot the results of inspections along the available pipeline mapping
systems, giving a better optic of the coverage of inspections,
pipelines, and incidents.
The improved data collection and sharing will also help inform
PHMSA's future rulemaking activity by allowing PHMSA to capture data
from the States on the 80 percent of the Nation's pipelines that they
oversee. Through this project, PHMSA and state inspection and
enforcement data could be combined with current incident and annual
reporting data to provide complete safety records for all pipeline
operators and a more complete view of the pipeline landscape to inform
future regulation. This would include the identification of pipelines
that pose a higher risk of failure as well as a more complete view of
overall fitness level information to be assessed when significant
determinations such as enforcement actions or the issuance of special
permits are being considered.
VII. Enhancing Enforcement
Enforcement authorities are a critical aspect of preventing and
deterring accidents. PHMSA is undergoing an assessment of its
enforcement capabilities and how it can use them more effectively.
Results over the course of the next three to four months will help the
agency create better alignment and efficiency in program delivery, and
identify opportunities to enhance enforcement of the authorities
Congress has granted PHMSA.
One of PHMSA's most effective enforcement tools is the Corrective
Action Order (CAO), which directs an operator to take immediate action
to prevent or mitigate the risks from a pipeline that poses a threat to
life, property, or the environment. However, a CAO only applies to a
single operator and cannot address emerging safety issues that affect
multiple operators. Advisory bulletins are important tools that provide
industry with clear guidance on issues that impact safety. While most
pipeline operators will adjust their practices based on information
communicated in Advisory Bulletins, the bulletins do not carry the
weight of law. As PHMSA works toward a comprehensive understanding of
it enforcement capabilities, it is committed to using all enforcement
authorities wisely to address the greatest risks and maximize safety.
VIII. Promoting a Strong Safety Culture at PHMSA and Industry-Wide
PHMSA improves safety by using all the tools at our disposal--
safety regulations, research and development, education and outreach,
inspections, and enforcement tools such as corrective actions, civil
penalties and other interventions. A critical part of this safety
system is to continually strive for improvement and to find new ways to
raise the bar on safety.
With stronger safety partnerships and enhanced coordination with
states, PHMSA aims to further enhance a risk-based approach to safety
management and a strong safety culture throughout the entire pipeline
sector and regulated industries.
Leading by Example
PHMSA is leading by example through the Agency Safety Action Plan
and organizational review. The ASAP should serve as a model for the
entire pipeline sector to take a close look at where safety
improvements can be made and to take concrete steps to drive toward
enhanced safety in a methodical and comprehensive way. The ASAP is a
PHMSA-wide effort, with the strong support of the Secretary of
Transportation.
In the next few weeks, PHMSA will also begin an organizational
assessment. With additional positions and funding for both the pipeline
and hazmat safety programs, Congress has invested in PHMSA. The
organizational assessment, in conjunction with a Human Capital Strategy
and Staffing Study, will help determine how to allocate these resources
and how to position the organization for efficiency and long-term
success. It also will help ensure effective use of resources to support
PHMSA's mission, reduce risk and improve safety.
Safety Management System Recommended Practice
In 2010, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
recommended that the American Petroleum Institute (API) facilitate the
development of a safety management system standard specific to the
pipeline industry, in collaboration with industry, regulators and other
stakeholders. PHMSA participated in the development of API Recommended
Practice (RP) 1173, the recently published recommended standard for
implanting Safety Management Systems in the pipeline industry.
PHMSA fully supports the implementation of RP 1173 and plans to
promote vigorous conformance to this voluntary standard. The
recommended practice is a proactive, system-wide approach to reducing
risks and provides operators with a comprehensive framework to address
risk across the entire life cycle of a pipeline. The standard promotes
pipeline safety, while implementing guidelines for continuous
improvement.
Moving forward, PHMSA will continue to work with states and other
stakeholders to encourage the implementation of RP 1173 across the
pipeline industry.
IX. Conclusion
PHMSA employs a talented team of experts and professionals, and is
dedicated to maintaining the highest levels of safety in today's and
tomorrow's industry. PHMSA has a variety of capabilities at its
disposal: enforcement authority, a workforce of world-class technical
experts, and safety partnerships. The goal is to work within the
organization, with partners and with Congress to implement changes that
allow for long-term success and safety in Montana, Nebraska and
nationwide.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Administrator.
Next, I would like to welcome Todd Denton. He is President
of Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC, where he is responsible for the
operation of approximately 11,000 miles of crude oil, refined
products, and NGL pipelines. He has 24 years experience in the
industry, beginning his career as a project engineer for
Diamond Shamrock. He later moved into engineering management
positions with UDS and Valero LP, and he has been in operations
management for the past eight years.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF TODD DENTON, PRESIDENT,
PHILLIPS 66 PIPELINE LLC
Mr. Denton. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate you having me.
I am Todd Denton, President of Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC. We are
members of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines and the American
Petroleum Institute. So today I will share with you examples of
our pipeline safety efforts, as well as industry-wide pipeline
safety improvement initiatives.
Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Phillips 66, operates, as you mentioned, more than 11,000 miles
of pipelines in the United States and 1,500 miles of pipelines
here in Montana. Our pipelines are remotely monitored and
controlled through a state-of-the-art 24-hour control center.
We also have five storage terminals here in Montana where
refined products are distributed to retail outlets.
Phillips 66 is one of the largest refiners in the United
States with 11 refineries, including one right here in
Billings, and a net crude oil processing capacity of 1.8
million barrels per day. We employ 14,000 people worldwide, and
we are investing billions of dollars every year in projects
that contribute to the health of the U.S. economy.
Phillips 66 proudly employs over 400 Montanans. These are
good-paying jobs that can support a family, provide for medical
care, savings for college, and retirement some day. We also
support Montana communities, schools, police departments, and
fire stations by contributing over $15 million annually to
property taxes. In addition, we recognize the responsibility
that we have to operate safely. Safety, honor, and commitment
are our core values. We work extremely hard to ensure our
pipelines operate with minimal impact to the public or
environment.
Pipelines are an exceedingly safe way to deliver the energy
America needs. For all of industry, the average barrel of crude
oil or petroleum product reaches its destination safely greater
than 99.999 percent of the time. Over the past 15 years,
pipeline incidents impacting the public or environment are down
50 percent. Corrosion and accidental third-party damage
incidents are each down more 76 percent.
So one of our current safety areas of focus involves
geohazards, primarily river crossings and land movement.
Flooding in 2011 on the Yellowstone River and the Missouri
River Basin as well will heighten awareness for Phillips 66 and
others in the pipeline industry. As a result, we added a large-
scale effort to our already robust integrity management program
in our Billings division to survey over 400 crossings to verify
the depth of cover, identify those prone to erosion and water
channel changes, identify and assess hundreds of potential land
movement features that could impact our pipelines, and develop
metrics to prioritize higher-risk areas based on factors, such
as depth of cover, channel migration and scour potential,
impact from debris, land movement, and potential consequences.
We then used the data gathered to select and execute
permanent mitigation strategies, such as new horizontal
directional drills, or HDDs, new trenched crossings targeting
double potential scour depth, bank stabilization, and pipeline
relocations. We also operate a real-time monitoring program for
flood events that includes proactive snow level and
precipitation monitoring, and USGS real-time data for stream
flows, which include 40 live flow stations.
These efforts do not come cheaply. The Billings Division
alone plans to spend nearly $120 million on approximately 100
projects from 2012 through 2017. This program has been
successful in part due to the cooperation of many stakeholders
and government agencies, including PHMSA, the Montana
Governor's Office, multiple state, county, and local agencies,
the Tribal Nations, and many landowners. While I speak for
Phillips 66 Pipeline, we are not alone in these efforts within
our industry. Other operators in Montana and throughout the
United States are undertaking their own river crossing
programs.
In addition, leaders of the liquids pipeline industry added
a strategic initiative just this year to update industry-wide
river crossing guidance. This strategic initiative will
significantly update and expand American Petroleum Institute
Recommended Practice 1133 to focus intensely on the surveying,
evaluation criteria, mitigation strategies, and monitoring of
existing river crossings. I will personally serve as the
executive champion for this effort, overseeing its development
and ensuring it receives the attention it deserves across the
industry.
As a Montana conservation group, Montanans for Healthy
Rivers, has said, ``It is no exaggeration to call rivers the
lifeblood of Montana. They provide us with drinking water,
irrigation water, water for industry, and boundless
recreational opportunities. The history of Montana is the
history of its rivers, and so will be its future.''
The future of Phillips 66 Pipeline in Montana is care and
stewardship of the rivers and lands that we cross. Phillips 66
Pipeline and the entire liquids pipeline industry are committed
to a goal of zero incidents, and a safety performance strategic
plan that includes improvements in technology, risk management,
safety culture and management practices, and response
capabilities.
Thank you for your invitation to testify today, and I look
forward to answering any questions you have. And, Senator, with
your permission, I believe we have a two-minute video that
explains some of our river crossing programs that we can share
with you.
Senator Fischer. OK.
[Video shown.]
[The prepared statement of Mr. Denton follows:]
Prepared Statement of Todd Denton, President, Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC
Thank you. I am Todd Denton, President of Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC.
We are members of the Association of Oil Pipe Lines and the American
Petroleum Institute. Today, I will share with you examples of our
pipeline safety efforts, as well as industry-wide pipeline safety
improvement initiatives.
Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Phillips 66,
operates more than 11,000 miles of pipelines in the United States and
1,500 miles of pipeline in Montana. Additionally, the company owns or
operates more than 50 finished-product, LPG, and crude oil storage and
distribution terminals. Our pipelines are remotely monitored and
controlled through a state-of-the-art 24 hour control center. We also
have five storage terminals here in Montana.
Phillips 66 Pipeline LLC transports both raw and finished petroleum
products, including crude oil, propane and refined products such as
gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. The company also stores motor fuels at
terminals, where tanker trucks pick them up for delivery to local
retail outlets.
Phillips 66 pipelines deliver products to and from refineries
across the country, including our own Phillips 66 refinery here in
Billings. Phillips 66 is one of the largest refiners in the United
States with 11 refineries and a net crude oil processing capacity of
1.8 million barrels per day. We employee 14,000 people worldwide and we
are investing billions of dollars every year in projects that
contribute to the health of the U.S. economy.
Phillips 66 and Phillips 66 Pipeline are proud to be part of
communities in Billings and across Montana. Phillips 66 employs over
400 Montanans. These are good paying jobs that can support a family,
provide for medical care, savings for college and retirement some day.
Phillips 66 facilities also support local communities through property
taxes. Montana schools, police departments and fire stations all
benefit from over $15 million in local taxes paid by Phillips 66.
Phillips 66 Pipeline recognizes not only the benefits it provides
to Montana communities, but also the responsibility we have to operate
safely in Montana. We work extremely hard to ensure our pipelines
operate with minimal impact to the public or environment.
Pipelines are an exceedingly safe way to deliver the energy America
needs. The average barrel of crude oil or petroleum products reaches
its destination safely greater than 99.999 percent of the time. Since
1999, pipeline incidents impacting the public or environment are down
50 percent. Corrosion-caused pipeline incidents are down 76 percent,
thanks to the widespread use of smart-pig in-line inspection to detect
corrosion in pipes. Pipeline incidents caused accidentally by third-
party damage are down 78 percent.
Pipeline incidents at river crossings are one focus of the
Subcommittee here today. A study conducted by the U.S. Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) concluded these are
relatively rare events. Over a 20 year period, PHMSA found 0.3 percent
of all reported liquids pipeline incidents had exposed pipe in
riverbeds as a contributing factor in the incidents. That said,
Phillips 66 Pipeline and the liquids pipeline industry recognize that
while relatively rare, pipeline incidents at river crossings are very
real with real impacts on the local surrounding communities.
One of our current safety areas of focus involves geohazards--
primarily river crossings and land movement. Flooding in 2011 on the
Yellowstone River and the Missouri River Basin heightened awareness for
Phillips 66 and others in the pipeline industry. As a result, we added
a large-scale effort to our already robust integrity management program
in our Billings division to:
Survey over 400 crossings to verify the depth of cover and
identify those prone to erosion and water channel changes;
Identify and assess hundreds of potential land movement
features that could impact our pipelines; and
Develop metrics to prioritize higher risk pipelines based
on:
Depth of cover;
Channel migration and scour potential;
Possible impact from debris;
Land movement; and
Potential consequences (such as downriver water
users).
We then used the data gathered to select and execute permanent
mitigation strategies such as:
New Horizontal Directional Drills (HDD);
New trenched crossings targeting double potential scour
depth;
Bank stabilization; and
Pipeline relocations
We also operate a real-time monitoring program for flood events
that includes:
Proactive snow level monitoring
Historic flow rates and trigger maximum flow rates
USGS real-time data for stream flow which includes 40 flow
stations
These efforts do not come cheaply. The Billings Division alone
plans to spend nearly $120 million on approximately 100 projects over 6
years averaging nearly $20 million per year. This program has been
successful in large part due to the cooperation of many stakeholders
and government agencies including PHMSA, the Montana Governor's office,
multiple state, county, and local agencies, the Tribal Nations, and
many landowners.
The experiences and efforts of Phillips 66 Pipeline are not alone
in the liquids pipeline industry. Other operators in Montana are
undertaking their own river crossing programs. In addition, this year
leaders of the liquids pipeline industry added a strategic initiative
to update industry-wide river crossing guidance.
American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice (RP) 1133 sets
out criteria for the design, construction, operation, maintenance and
abandonment of onshore pipelines. Developed after flooding on the San
Jacinto River in Texas 20 years ago, the current RP focuses primarily
on construction techniques in floodplains and commercially navigable
waterways.
Our strategic initiative will update and expand this industry-wide
guidance to focus more intensely on the monitoring and management of
existing river crossings. We expect the updated guidance to include
strategies for surveying existing crossings, developing evaluation
criteria and plans, undertaking mitigation strategies and implementing
monitoring programs. I will personally serve as the executive champion
for this effort, overseeing its development and ensuring it receives
the attention it deserves across the industry.
As a Montana conservation group (Montanans for Healthy Rivers) has
said, ``[i]t is no exaggeration to call rivers the lifeblood of
Montana. They provide us with drinking water, irrigation water, water
for industry, and boundless recreational opportunities. The history of
Montana is the history of its rivers, and so will be its future.''
(http://healthyriversmt.org)
The future of Phillips 66 Pipeline in Montana is care and
stewardship of the rivers and lands we cross. Phillips 66 Pipeline and
the entire liquids pipeline industry are committed to strong, robust
river crossing programs protecting our natural and public resources.
Thank you for your invitation to testify before you today and I
look forward to answering any questions you may have.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Denton.
Next, I would like to welcome Commissioner John Ostlund. He
is serving his third term as Yellowstone County Commissioner
for District 1, which has jurisdiction over parts of Billings
and Lockwood, Montana.
He was first elected to the three-member commission in
2002, and prior to that position, Mr. Ostlund headed the
Yellowstone County Road Department. Welcome, sir.
STATEMENT OF JOHN OSTLUND, COMMISSIONER, YELLOWSTONE COUNTY,
BILLINGS, MONTANA
Mr. Ostlund. Good morning, Chairman Fischer and Senator
Daines. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
Pipeline safety and protecting our environment is our
number one priority in Yellowstone County. However, with that
said, the three refineries and their associated incoming crude
lines and outbound gas and diesel distribution lines provide
enormous employment opportunities with high-paying jobs, a
stable tax base for our roads, bridges, schools, and public
safety.
In 2011, Yellowstone County awoke to a broken pipeline
spilling crude into an already flooding Yellowstone River. The
disaster tested our ability to manage a quick response to stop
the flow, capture as much of the released oil as possible, and
start the process of an enormous cleanup project. I came away
from that 2011 Yellowstone River spill with a new appreciation
of how the Federal EPA, State DEQ, Exxon's team of
professionals, and local elected officials faced with a serious
environmental challenge can work together to evaluate the
cause, launch an immediate cleanup, and work through the summer
to end up with a finished product that we are all proud of.
Many lessons were learned from the spill. Old and new
pipeline crossings, river pipeline crossings, have been bored
much deeper under our free-flowing rivers and streams, new
check valves have been added, along with additional monitoring
equipment to prevent future problems. While no system is
flawless, pipelines have the best safety record for
transporting oil and gas, and are the most efficient way to
deliver both crude oil and the finished products. Our
refineries provide a stable economic base, great opportunities
for employment, a stable tax base, and are one of the reasons
that our county has remained fairly recession proof when other
parts of the Nation have suffered major periods of economic
decline.
While it is very important to set our goals for pipeline
safety high and expect 100 percent compliance with all of the
rules and regulations, I would ask that we be careful not to
overregulate any industry. Our Federal government has a history
of making the process so complicated and lengthy that projects
like our Northeast Highway Bypass, already 15 years in the
planning, just this year received a record of decision allowing
us to take the next steps to move the process forward. Just
imagine the cost increases when it takes 20 years to move a
project from concept to completion.
Everyone wants a clean and healthful environment. However,
we must find a way moving forward to ensure that the process
does not become the problem. Our taxpayers foot the bill for
study after study that causes delay after delay. Common sense
should tell us that we can effectively regulate business
without grinding that business to a halt.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ostlund follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Ostlund, Commissioner,
Yellowstone County, Billings, Montana
Chairwoman Senator Deb Fischer--Honored members of the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, thank you for
allowing me to testify on an issue as important to Montana as pipeline
safety.
For the record, my name is John Ostlund and I am a Yellowstone
County Commissioner.
The 2.6 million miles of pipeline networks in our Nation are vital
parts of our country's infrastructure. In Montana and Yellowstone
County, they supply the gas, diesel, heating oil, jet fuel and cooking
fuel that are the life blood of our economy.
Pipeline safety is very high in our priorities especially after the
Exxon spill in 2011. We have an expectation that all regulations and
rules will be 100 percent complied with.
With that said, I worked on a daily basis with the excellent team
from Exxon, the Federal EPA, the State DEQ, and our local elected
officials on the cleanup and can tell you from personal experience that
Exxon did a first class job on restoring the Yellowstone River to a
pristine condition. Additionally, Exxon bent over backwards to insure
each and every property owner was compensated for any loss and made
whole.
As a follow-up with the refineries, it is important to note the
lessons learned from the spill and mitigation efforts from the pipeline
companies and refineries to reduce future possibilities of another
catastrophic incident. River crossings have been looked at, new
pipelines and older ones are being bored much deeper under our
important waterways, and new valves have been installed with additional
monitoring equipment with a focus on pipeline safety and more efficient
operations while working to reduce the possibility of future incidents.
It is in the pipeline and refineries best interest to comply with
all safety regulations and I see a strong desire by the private
companies to go above what is expected to provide a safe environment
for transportation of our Nation's critical fuel supply and look out
for the best interest of their stockholders.
While regulation and compliance are important, please consider that
OVER regulation drives up costs, slows progress, and impedes new
development at a time when oil production in our great country is at an
all-time high. America's national security depends more every year on
producing and refining our own gas and diesel as we watch the Middle
East become less stable. Our economy in Yellowstone County has been
very stable. One big reason for that economic stability is that three
of the four refineries in the state are located in Yellowstone County,
along with the associated oil supply pipelines and diesel and gas
distribution lines. All together, the pipelines in our state pay $72
million dollars per year in taxes. And, if you add utility gas
distribution lines into the picture, tax revenue exceeds 100 million
dollars. Cenex Harvest States alone provides 337 jobs in Montana
exceeding wages of $65,000 per year (which is twice the Montana average
salary), with an additional 860 jobs in pipeline construction. Exxon
has 250 professional and competitive wage jobs and employs over 100
contractors every day of the year.
In total, class nine properties which are mostly pipelines, over
the last few years, have paid 12.5 percent to 13 percent of all
property taxes paid in Montana.
I have not mentioned Phillips 66 who will be here today with their
own numbers; however, I can tell you collectively that our 3 refineries
and the pipelines that support their operation play a major role in
Yellowstone County's economic success story.
Of the total property tax revenue collected, the three refineries
pay 32 percent of Yellowstone County's Road and Bridge budget. Those
monies directly provide for all of the maintenance and repair of our
county's rural road system, both asphalt and gravel.
These refineries, that are also great community partners, play a
critical role in our county's recession proof economy and are always
there when a school or a Little League team needs a helping hand.
I do have some recommendations looking forward at the regulatory
process. The MOST important is not to OVER REGULATE. The process I
worked through with Exxon, the EPA, DEQ and our local elected officials
worked very effectively. Exxon, the pipeline companies and the Board of
County Commissioners were very satisfied with the end product of a
clean environment, new thought processes regarding deeper lines at
river crossings, additional valves and monitoring equipment and a
renewed focus on pipeline safety.
As I continue to dialog with the refineries, I am impressed with a
total commitment to the goals of a 100 percent safety record.
If any one thing could be done to reduce the possibility of
pipeline breaks it would be to provide further education in the 811one
call systems. Excavation without the one call locations has much more
risk of damaging the system with catastrophic results than natural
disasters can produce.
In summary, the best example of over regulation I can provide is
our National Highway system and the time required to move a project
from concept to completion.
In Yellowstone County, we are working on a federally funded highway
project called the Northeast Bypass. The five mile project started as a
concept 15 years ago and, because the environmental process now takes
more time and costs more than the project itself, we have just
completed the Record of Decision allowing us to take additional steps
to work toward actual construction of the bypass. When it takes 15
years to get to the point you can think about starting construction you
can see regulations are more of the problem than the solution.
Chairwoman Fischer and honored members of the senate committee,
while we all want a clean and healthful environment I have more fear
for our country's future from over regulation than from industry
performance. Washington, DC has over regulated business to the point of
grinding those business ventures to a halt, the process has become the
problem and, while spending millions of tax payer dollars on studies,
we are not producing any measurable results.
I ask that any additional rules be well thought out and that we
empower as many of those rules as possible to be handled at the local
government level.
Chairwoman Fischer and honored members of the senate committee,
thank you for allowing me to testify today. I would be happy to answer
any questions.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, sir. Next we have Michelle
Slyder, and she is currently the Director or with the
Department of Transportation, a Compliance Manager--correct--in
pipelines and terminals at CHS located in Billings, Montana.
She has experience serving on committees and councils, such as
the Cirque Oil and Gas Industry, the Montana CGA Committee, the
Montana Utility Coordinating Council, and the Montana Liquid
and Gas Pipeline Association.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF MICHELLE SLYDER, FOUNDING MEMBER/TREASURER,
MONTANA LIQUID GAS PIPELINE ASSOCIATION
Ms. Slyder. Good morning Chairman Fischer, Senator Daines,
and members of the Subcommittee. My name is Michelle Slyder,
and I am here to testify today on behalf of the Montana Liquid
and Gas Pipeline Association, commonly known as the MLGPA,
which is comprised of the 30 major pipeline operators in
Montana. Through this testimony I will share with you the
specific approaches the MLGPA has implemented across the state
of Montana, including many that go above and beyond the Federal
code of regulatory requirements in regards to public awareness.
Federal regulations currently require pipeline operators to
perform public awareness outreach to four main stakeholder
audiences: emergency responders, public officials, excavators,
and the affected public. This outreach can be accomplished via
many forms of engagement such as direct mail, advertising and
face-to-face meetings. Regulations specify the frequency and
content requirements, but leaves the methods of outreach up to
individual pipeline operators. The following testimony
identifies the methods utilized by the MLGPA to address public
awareness program requirements.
Per Federal regulation, emergency responders and public
officials must be engaged on an annual basis for emergency
responders and on a three-year interval for public officials.
The MLGPA meets or exceeds these requirements by providing
direct mail to both audiences on an annual basis via membership
with the Pipeline Association for Public Awareness. In addition
to baseline training and messaging, the MLGPA provides
emergency responders with interactive pipeline emergency
response training scenarios, emergency contact directories for
pipeline operator information, capabilities assessments and
reports, an identified site and emergency planning application,
and interoperable response procedures that can be modified to
meet local requirements.
In 2007, the MLGPA also began hosting more than 20 face-to-
face meetings annually with emergency responders and public
officials across the state. Through these meetings, the MLGPA
members meet with an average of 600 stakeholders annually. This
outreach is performed by the members and not contractors, and
is crucial to establishing the relationships necessary to
ensure effective response and teamwork in the event of a
pipeline release. These relationships have been built and
maintained over many years by the MLGPA's commitment to meeting
the expectations of the predominantly volunteer emergency
responder audience.
This has been achieved by securing continuing education
credits for the peace officers and emergency medical services,
and modifying the presentation approach on an ongoing basis.
For example, the original presentations contained the baseline
messaging as required by PHMSA, but resulted in minimal
engagement of the audience due to the volume of material being
presented.
We have modified those presentations now to the current
meeting format, which includes site-specific scenarios in a
local tabletop exercise format and local case studies that
allow emergency responders to learn from real-world events. The
MLGPA also accommodates volunteer participation by rotating the
location and timing of the events to coincide with regular fire
department meetings in rural locations.
In 2008, the MLGPA also teamed with the National
Association of State Fire Marshals to co-sponsor the NASFM
Pipeline Emergencies Train the Trainer Program in Montana. This
was the first time industry had ever engaged NASFM to bring the
training to the State level. There were more than 50
stakeholders in attendance, which was the highest ever achieved
by any state at that time. The MLGPA members also gave
presentations and staff informational booths at the Volunteer
Fire Chiefs annual meetings, Montana Career Fire Chiefs
Association annual meetings, the Montana Disaster and Emergency
Service meetings, as well as offering pipeline training
opportunities for responders to participate in pipeline-
specific incident command structure training, tabletop
exercises, boom deployments, town hall meetings and facility
tours.
Moving on to the excavator and affected public outreach
that is performed by the MLGPA, we accomplish it through a
substantial amount of supplemental outreach through
collaboration with Montana811 and the Montana Utility
Coordinating Council. This outreach includes implementation of
funding of a statewide advertising campaign and effectiveness
surveys that utilize over $100,000 a year to promote the ``Call
Before You Dig'' message, improving prevention of pipeline
accidents.
Members of the MLGPA also help staff Montana811 excavator
meetings, allowing an average of 1,200 excavators to meet face
to face with pipeline operators every year. MLGPA members also
assist Montana8ll in staffing ag safety days and expos, home
improvement shows, minor league baseball games, and the
University of Montana and Montana State Cat/Griz games. And
MLGPA members have also installed tank signs that promote the
``Call Before You Dig'' message in high visibility areas such
as Billings, Glendive, Logan, Missoula, Helena, and Cut Bank,
as well as billboard signs across the state.
In conclusion, I would like to share that the success of
the MLGPA has been built on the foundation established through
collaborative efforts and extensive face-to-face outreach with
all of the stakeholders across Montana. The members of the
MLGPA consider collaborative organizations to be at the
cornerstone of our success. The extensive level of stakeholder
engagement in Montana proves that it is effective to allow
operators the flexibility to implement common sense local
strategies to address Federal requirements, and that there is
no one-size-fits-all approach to public awareness.
Thank you for inviting me to testify today and provide
information on the commitment the MLGPA. I would be happy to
answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Slyder follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michelle Slyder, Founding Member/Current
Treasurer, Montana Liquid and Gas Pipeline Association
I. Introduction
Good morning Chairman Fischer, Senator Daines, Senator Tester, and
members of the Subcommittee. My name is Michelle Slyder, I am here to
testify on behalf of the Montana Liquid and Gas Pipeline Association,
commonly known as the MLGPA, which is comprised of 30 major pipeline
operators in Montana.
Through this testimony I will share with you the specific
approaches the MLGPA has implemented across the state of Montana,
including many that go above and beyond the Federal code requirements
in regards to public awareness.
Federal code currently requires pipeline operators to perform
public awareness outreach to four main stakeholder audiences: emergency
responders, public officials, excavators, and the affected public. This
outreach can be accomplished via many forms of engagement such as
direct mail, advertising and face to face meetings. The code specifies
the frequencies and content requirements and leaves the methods of
outreach up to individual pipeline operators. The following testimony
identifies the methods utilized by the MLGPA to address public
awareness program requirements.
II. Emergency Responder and Public Official Outreach
Per Federal code, pipeline operators are required to deliver
baseline messaging to emergency responders annually and public
officials every three years. The MLGPA meets or exceeds these
requirements by providing direct mail to both audiences on an annual
basis via membership with the Pipeline Association for Public
Awareness, referred to as PAPA. In addition to baseline messaging, the
MLGPA provides emergency responders with interactive pipeline emergency
response training scenarios, emergency contact directories,
capabilities assessments and reports, an identified site and emergency
planning application, and interoperable response procedures that can be
modified to meet local requirements.
In 2007, the MLGPA began hosting more than 20 face to face meetings
annually with emergency responders and public officials. Through these
meetings, the MLGPA members meet with an average of over 600
stakeholders annually. This outreach is performed by the members and
not contractors and is crucial to establishing the relationships
necessary to ensure effective response and teamwork in the event of a
pipeline release. These relationships have been built and maintained
over many years by the MLGPA's commitment to meeting the expectations
of the predominantly volunteer emergency responder audience. This has
been achieved by securing Peace Officer Standards and Training and
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) continuing education credits to help
responders meet their annual training requirements and modifying the
presentation approach on an ongoing basis. For example, the original
presentations contained the baseline messaging, as required by Pipeline
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), but resulted in
minimal engagement of the audience due to the volume of data being
presented. In order to engage the audience and maintain attendance
levels, it became apparent that the approach needed modification. The
current meeting format includes site specific scenarios in a local
tabletop exercise format and local case studies that allow emergency
responders to learn from real world events. The MLGPA also accommodates
volunteer participation by rotating the location and timing of the
events to coincide with regular fire department meetings in rural
locations.
In 2008, the MLGPA teamed with the National Association of State
Fire Marshals (NSAFM) to co-sponsor the NASFM Pipeline Emergencies
Train the Trainer Program in Montana. This was the first time the
industry had ever engaged NASFM to cosponsor the training and there
were more than 50 stakeholders in attendance, which was the highest
ever achieved by any state at that time.
MLGPA members also give presentations and staff informational
booths at the Volunteer Fire Chiefs annual meeting, Montana Career Fire
Chiefs Association annual meeting, and Montana Disaster & Emergency
Services meetings, as well as offer pipeline training opportunities for
responders to participate in pipeline specific incident command
structure training, tabletop exercises, boom deployments, town hall
meetings and facility tours.
III. Excavator and Affected Public Outreach
The MLGPA accomplishes a substantial amount of supplemental
outreach to excavators and the affected public through the partnership
it has developed with the Montana Utility Coordinating Council and
Montana811. This outreach includes:
Implementation of a statewide advertising campaign and
effectiveness surveys utilizing over $100,000 a year to promote
the ``Call Before You Dig'' message to all Montana residents.
Members of the MLGPA help staff Montana811 excavator
meetings, allowing an average of 1200 excavators to meet face
to face with pipeline operators every year.
MLGPA members also assist Montana811 in staffing ag safety
days and expos, home improvement shows, minor league baseball
games, and University of Montana-Montana State ``Cat/Griz''
games.
MLGPA members have also installed tank signs promoting
``Call Before You Dig'' in high visibility areas in Billings,
Glendive, Logan, Missoula, Helena and Cut Bank as well as
billboard style signs along many highways across the state.
IV. Conclusion
The success of the MLGPA has been built on the foundation
established through collaborative efforts and extensive face to face
outreach with all stakeholders. The members of the MLGPA consider
collaborative organizations to be a cornerstone of our success. The
extensive level of stakeholder engagement in Montana proves that it is
effective to allow operators the flexibility to implement common sense
local strategies to address code requirements and that there is no one
size fits all approach to public awareness.
Thank you for inviting me to testify today on the commitment of the
members of the MLGPA to the communities in which we operate. This
concludes my testimony and I would be happy to answer any questions you
may have.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Ms. Slyder, and thank you to
all our panel for your testimony.
Since we are from Nebraska and Montana, Senator Daines and
I agreed that we are going to be a little more informal in our
questioning than we usually are with a--with a Senate hearing.
So we are going to see how that works.
[Laughter.]
Senator Fischer. But we think it will be great. So I am
going to begin with a few questions. Senator Daines then will
do some. We will have a little back and forth, and I hope the
panel is willing to go with us on this as well.
First, I would like to begin with you, Administrator. I
know that you have just been in the position a few months. How
is it going?
Ms. Dominguez. Well, thank you very much. It is going well.
Senator Fischer. Good. Are we seeing any major changes to
the Agency? Are you looking at some different changes with the
organization because I know that is a very strong suit that you
have?
Ms. Dominguez. Thank you. We are. I have been in the
position now for just over a month officially. I was confirmed
on August 5. Again, thank you. And we have had an aggressive
kickoff here. Coming in I was able to bring some new leadership
members to the team, and we have started an aggressive
assessment of the organization. One of the things we are going
to be launching here in the next couple of weeks is an
organizational assessment of the entire Agency to look for
potential efficiencies, how are we structured. Congress has
been incredibly generous in its funding to help us increase our
inspector workload moving forward, and we are doing all we can
to hire into those positions. The appropriations that came
through last year were very helpful in that regard.
But moving forward, what we want to make sure is that we
are taking those resources and we are actually not only
distributing them well across the Nation where they need to be,
but also making sure that all of our programs and our
operations are working as efficiency as possible, and that we
are structured to not only handle the growth that has been
given to us, but then move forward to make sure that we are
addressing future energy needs of this country because clearly
our energy markets are changing, and we need to make sure that
we can address them.
Senator Fischer. Can you talk a little bit about how you
are moving forward in meeting the congressional mandates from
2011, and what specific challenges you may be facing there?
Ms. Dominguez. We have had--we had a good number of
mandates that were outlined in the 2011 Act. And we have worked
through about 26 of the 42 existing mandates that include
rulemakings, reports to Congress, et cetera. I will tell you
that with the notice that we received this morning from the
Office of Management and Budget, a number of those existing
requirements that were outlined--a couple of those existing
requirements that were outlined in the 2011 Act, we hope to
address through this rulemaking on hazardous liquids. It is one
of the two major rulemakings that we have been working on, and
it has been something that has been a key priority of mine
since coming on board, was to try and move these through our
regulatory process.
So I look forward to actual publication of the rule so that
we can share it with our stakeholders and engage in a very good
dialogue. We want to bring transparency. We want to communicate
what those rulemakings are, and then get some good dialogue so
that we can move to final issuance of some rules here and
complete the mandates.
Senator Fischer. And as you look at that Agency Action
Plan, what specific initiatives have you been considering?
Ms. Dominguez. Well, as I mentioned, the ASAP, the Agency
Safety Action Plan, is something that I have started with the
Secretary of Transportation. He is very much focused on looking
at all of the modes of transportation to make sure that we are
taking a good critical eye on leveraging our existing
capabilities and the authorities that we presently have. So we
have started that. The first part of our assessment is our
enforcement regime, and we hope in the next month or two here
we are going to start to see some preliminary results, and----
Senator Fischer. What direction do you think you are headed
in on the specifics?
Ms. Dominguez. What we are trying to do is make sure that
as we look at all of the enforcement capabilities, for
instance, this is one area, all of the enforcement capabilities
that we have, we go from a corrective action order, which is
directed at a single operator when they meet a certain imminent
hazardous threshold, and we are needing to address critical
deficiencies. That is a very, very high threshold, and it goes
all the way down to, you know, literally fines.
So the question is, given that range, is there anything
more that we can do? Are we doing it well, and where can we
make some improvements? Are there additional things that we
should potentially talk to the Congress about? Those are the
areas that we are looking at.
Senator Fischer. Thank you very much. Senator Daines?
Senator Daines. Thanks, Chairman Fischer. We have an
opportunity to give some feedback to PHMSA and also to get 45
days of assessment, Administrator Dominguez, of what you think
as well, building on what Chairman Fischer asked. So whether
you want to do it as a start/continue kind of feedback and what
should PHMSA should stop doing, start doing, continue doing, or
perhaps one to two things that PHMSA is doing right now, one or
two areas where PHMSA could be improved. Very much just to have
that dialogue here today.
It is kind of nice to have this open conversation versus
having to write letters to an office and go through the
bureaucratic channels of D.C. Here we have a chance to have an
open conversation. And so, let us start with--we will let the
Administrator go last on that because I know you have your own
assessments as well.
So a couple of things are going well. A couple of things at
PHMSA that should change. Who would like to start?
Mr. Denton. I will take a shot.
Senator Daines. All right, Mr. Denton.
Mr. Denton. So I think on the positive side, PHMSA has very
qualified, competent inspectors, and they go after their tasks.
They know the regulations. They know the assets, and they do
well when they come into our facilities. I think a couple of
improvements may be around getting inspection results out
sooner. Potentially, you know, it takes months sometimes before
we see those. And in the meantime, we may be having another
inspection where if we had those results, we could be
implementing those improvements. And perhaps the--some of the
hirings that they will be doing over this next year can help
speed that up as well.
Senator Daines. Could you elaborate? In terms of kind of on
average, what kind of time delays from the time of inspection
until you see the report will you start taking corrective
action? About how long is that?
Mr. Denton. From our side?
Senator Daines. Yes.
Mr. Denton. Many times it is about a year.
Senator Daines. A year.
Mr. Denton. Right.
Senator Daines. From the time the inspection occurs----
Mr. Denton. Right.
Senator Daines.--until you are told the result of the
inspection.
Mr. Denton. Or it can be sooner. It can be--it can be
later, and it has varied quite a bit over the years. I will say
it has gotten better in recent years.
Senator Daines. In the last 45 days perhaps.
Mr. Denton. We have seen----
Senator Daines. That is right.
Mr. Denton.--we have seen improvements already.
Mr. Denton. That is right.
[Laughter.]
Senator Daines. That is great, OK.
Mr. Denton. So then, second, I would probably say, you
know, a little bit of a frustration for us is we would like to
see a little more consistency among the inspectors. There are
five different regions. We also have five different operating
regions. We operate in all five of PHMSA's regions, so we often
see different--you know, they each have different focuses, and
so sometimes there is a little bit of inconsistency there.
And then, I guess, third, we would like to see a move
towards performance-based regulations. And I think we will have
an opportunity, not necessary regulations, but performance-
based inspections. And with the new safety management system--
--
Senator Daines. Mr. Denton, what does that mean? I am not
clear what ``performance-based inspection'' means.
Mr. Denton. So, and I will tell you, we even do this to
ourselves, you know. Internally we audit ourselves to death,
right? So we look at things we call operations excellence,
compliance issues, you know, health, safety, environmental,
things like that. And a lot of times it becomes a little bit of
a check the box, you know. Here is the--here is the rule. Here
is what you need to do, so check the box. That is fine. We need
to be addressing those things. But let us look at what really
makes a difference, right? Are there things that maybe we do
not necessarily have a rule for that we can make some
improvements on?
And at the end of the day, industry and PHMSA have the same
end goal, right? I mean, we both want to drive toward zero
incidents. So I think there is a collaborative effort that we
can make there. And as I started to say a minute ago, the
biggest piece I think that will--recently that will contribute
to that is our recent safety management system recommended
practice. You know, that is something that has been in the--
say, the refining industry for many years. You are probably
familiar with it as a chemical engineer.
That has not been in the pipeline industry, and so that
just rolled out. It was published in July, and we will be
moving into our implementation phase. And that is much of a
performance-based type standard, so we would like to get that
implemented. I think we will see improvements there, and PHMSA
can use as part of, you know, those improvements as well.
Senator Daines. You are going to get the last word,
Administrator. So we are going to--you are going to get the----
Ms. Dominguez. I am taking notes.
[Laughter.]
Senator Daines. No, you are going to get to close here. So
we will kind of go down the line between either Commissioner
Ostlund or Ms. Slyder.
Mr. Ostlund. Madam Chairman and Senator Daines, thank you
for the question. You know, quite honestly I think consistent
application of the rules to everyone is very, very important.
We need to know that wherever--we are in the same level playing
field. And we spend a lot of time and a lot of focus with our
operators on the pipeline safety around the 811 call system,
and it appears that you are much more likely to see a spill.
Even though it will not likely be the magnitude of a river
spill, you are much more likely to find a problem with the
result of construction equipment than anything else.
And so, a focus on more training for the 811 system. More
education, I think, would be extremely important and very
helpful, and reduce the amount of accidents that we do have,
down time, and spills, and contamination.
Senator Daines. Thanks, Commissioner. Ms. Slyder?
Ms. Slyder. I would like to offer up that PHMSA does an
outstanding job of assisting pipeline operators in engaging the
stakeholders from a public awareness perspective. They have
CATS coordinators--community assistance and technical
specialists--basically that help engage when we need them to
help drive process improvements.
For example, in the State of Montana, we are currently
trying to revise the one-call damage prevention line in the
State, and the CATS coordinator from PHMSA has been heavily
engaged throughout that process. And I think that, again, it
speaks to that collaborative approach even between the
regulators and the pipeline operators trying to do what is
right. So I would like to definitely, you know, commend them on
that effort because it is a commitment to provide those
resources to us.
One area that I would like to see them continue to focus
some emphasis on is, you know, sometimes we get wrapped up in
the statistics of what we are doing, and it kind of comes back
to Mr. Denton's comment about the actual performance of it.
When we look at what the MLGPA does in the State, our biggest
measure of effectiveness is not a statistic. It is not how many
did we outreach to. It is not numbers. It is how engaged are
they in the process, and are they coming back and reaching out
to us for additional information.
So that is how we gauge our success is are the DES
coordinators coming to us and developing pipeline response
annexes? Are fire departments wanting more information, wanting
to come into our facilities, and learn more about what they
need to do to be effective when it comes to pipeline emergency
response? And so, to me that is the piece that I would like to
see, you know, is that we focus more on, like you said, the
bigger performance of the program, not just statistics.
Senator Daines. Great, thank you. Administrator?
Ms. Dominguez. Thank you. I greatly appreciate all the
witnesses' statements, and comments, and insights. I first and
foremost want to talk about--you mentioned inspection results.
I am hoping that the resources that have been provided to us
are going to greatly assist us in our--in our capability of
turning around our inspection results to our operators in a
more efficient manner, and hopefully more in a timely way. We
have been in need of those resources to actually help assist
doing that--in doing that.
Senator Daines. Let me ask a question. Is there--is there a
goal or a standard set in terms of we should--we should try to
get it with in 90 days or 30 days? Is there some kind of
standard in PHMSA of the time from inspection until we get the
report back to the operator?
Ms. Dominguez. I am sure there is. I do not know directly
if there--I am sure there is a performance associated with it.
If not, I will be asking those questions immediately after this
hearing. But I think that there should be, and I think that one
of the opportunities that we have moving forward is actually to
make sure that we are leveraging these new inspectors as they
come on board and helping as part of their training understand
the importance of conveying our inspection results back to the
operators, because it does further foster that culture of
safety.
I think that the other that--I had a chance yesterday here
in Montana to meet with a number of--in fact, everyone here on
the panel, some members of Commissioner Ostlund's conservation
districts from the Yellowstone River as well, but had a chance
to sit down with Phillips and had a chance to sit down with Ms.
Slyder and some of her colleagues, and really understand the
context in which they are operating.
One of the things that I was able to talk to in particular
with all three is about this larger safety management system,
and how do we actually go to a more performance-based set of
criteria that we can all work from? And PHMSA has been headed
in that direction in a number of ways. We as the regulator, as
you know, set the minimum standard for what operators need to
meet, and we expect that they go above that in their integrity
management systems, and all of the information that they put
into those systems. So the ability to actually be more
performance-oriented is inherent in the regulatory framework
that we operate off of.
That said, moving forward, the industry is taking a
leadership role, and I greatly appreciate it, and I am
challenging them in an even greater direction on safety
management systems and a safety management culture, and then
building off of the standard that they have introduced under
API-1173. It is a great framework for truly integrating a
number of aspects of performance-based operation. It is really
a continuous improvement cycle, and it is something that we at
PHMSA are also looking at doing for our own internal regulatory
processes as well.
But it is a great--it is a big challenge. It is a number of
industries, as you may know, already engaged in it, a number of
departments within the Department of Transportation, such as
the aviation industry, are already in an SMS culture. I think
there is opportunity moving forward to do that in the pipeline
culture as well.
Senator Daines. Thanks, Administrator. Chairman Fischer?
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Daines. Mr.
Commissioner, could you talk a little bit about the experience
you have in addressing that 2011 spill in the Yellowstone, and
what you learned from that, and how you had to then deal with
the spill in 2015?
Mr. Ostlund. Chairwoman Fischer and Senator Daines, I would
be glad to. That was quite an experience in 2011, and, of
course, one of the first things that you hear about at the
local level is how bad the Federal Government is and how poorly
they operate. And I can tell you from experience that that was
not the case at all. In fact, the Federal regulators that come
in, along with the State DEQ, worked extremely effectively with
the local community, and they provided all fact-based analysis
to the public during the public meetings and hearings. And they
talked about whether or not there were carcinogens in the oil,
and the vapor, and all the questions that were asked by the
public that were exposed to the spill.
I actually thought the process was kind of refreshing. It
is never good to have a disaster, but after the disaster
occurred, it was incredible to see the team work so effectively
together. Exxon just did, I thought, a bang-up job. They
brought all of the people that they needed and all the
resources in, and we talked to very few people along the way
that were not completely happy and satisfied with the way the
spill was being dealt with. And if you fly, or drive, or boat
down the river right now, you will find no remnants of that
spill. They bent over backward to clean up.
I quite honestly think that that was one of the most
effective responses that I have seen to a natural disaster, and
was quite impressed with everyone.
Senator Fischer. Good to hear. How have PHMSA grants helped
Montana? Have they assisted in public safety in any way? Are
you aware of the grant situation?
Mr. Ostlund. You know, I am not aware of any grant
applications that we have had directly, so.
Senator Fischer. Anybody else on the panel aware of that?
Ms. Slyder?
Ms. Slyder. They do have a damage prevention grant that the
Montana Utility Coordinating Council has teamed with Joel
Tierney with the Public Service Commission to get that
application in for those grants. In the past, they have been
used for damage prevention outreach. We have hosted utility
locator training schools in the state as a result of those
grants, and we continue to look for opportunities like that.
Right now, the grant opportunities for damage prevention in
the state are not available to us because of the need to update
our one-call law in the state of Montana. We did apply, and we
did not receive funding this year as a result of that, so we
are working toward that currently.
Senator Fischer. When you apply for the grants, I would ask
you, do you--do you see good cooperation with PHMSA on that?
Are they--are they aware of concerns that you have at the state
and local level?
Ms. Slyder. Yes, they are engaged in the process, and have
a lot of communication, I believe, with Joel Tierney at the PSE
to really evaluate that need, and what the basics are, and why
we are looking to do what it is we are asking them to do, yes.
Senator Fischer. And as you have mentioned, is it the 811--
--
Ms. Slyder. Yes.
Senator Fischer.--system that you have in place there? What
are the efforts of the State and local officials with that,
regarding that call system? How is that coming along, because
most incidents occur because somebody puts a pipeline in.
Ms. Slyder. Yes, there are a significant amount of
incidents that are actually caused by third party damage. We
have a very engaged stakeholder audience here in the State of
Montana. Through the one-call law rewrite efforts, we have
found that most of the stakeholders want to see us get to where
we have an improved one-call law that meets the requirements
that PHMSA has set forth, and are very engaged in the process.
And I think that, again, the MLGPA's overlap and work
through Montana811 speaks to that as well. All of the utilities
in the State of Montana host these face-to-face meetings
annually with excavators. We also perform the public awareness
outreach that I talked about, as well as outreach to farmers
and ranchers specific to damage prevention. So we are doing a
lot in the state to try to promote safe excavation practices
and the use of one-call, and our numbers and statistics are
showing a positive trend.
Senator Fischer. And I know, Mr. Denton, your company has a
very good safety record, but accidents happen. How are you
reaching out to local stakeholders?
Mr. Denton. I will add on to the 811 piece. You know, going
back, I mentioned improvement over the last 15 years, and
really I attribute that to two big things. One is technology
with the introduction of smart pigging, which took care of a
lot of the corrosion type issues. And then the second was a
cultural change, which was really the 811 ``Call Before You
Dig.''
But we are still having some of those incidents, and the
number of incidents of those types are small. I believe it is
less than 10 percent. But they have a much more likelihood to
be a serious incident because you have someone there that may
be digging into your pipeline with the potential for a fatality
or injury even. So I think, in fact, they are over a third of
the serious incidents.
So the new damage prevention rule that came out from PHMSA
I think is very important. We would like to see additional
enforcement in the states. I think, in fact, Montana is one of
four states that does not necessarily enforce 811 laws, so that
is one improvement we would like to see.
In the meantime, as an industry we spend a lot of time and
effort on public awareness, and that has been a big
improvement. You know, 10 years ago you would send a postcard
to a local landowner, hey, you have a pipeline near you, just
be aware of it. We are getting a lot more creative now. We are
going to schools. We are contributing money to PTOs if they
will have a session on pipelines in their area. We are going
face-to-face to landowners.
And then the emergency response piece of it that was
mentioned earlier has been a big piece of it. The last--we
started an emergency response advisory board about two years
ago involving all of the fire--I did not know there were so
many fire associations, but there are. We got them in there,
getting the word out. We started this online training free
portal, and I believe over 3,500 first responders have signed
up for that already. So that is helping get that word out.
Senator Fischer. And how do you address public concerns
about the safety of pipelines, especially when they are
crossing rivers, when they are near aquafers? How do you, I
guess, explain to the public your command and control center? I
think it is in Oklahoma City? Is that correct?
Mr. Denton. Correct.
Senator Fischer. How can you monitor a pipeline in Montana,
and how quickly can you know if an issue arises so that we can
make sure that our water is protected?
Mr. Denton. Right. So two--I guess two pieces to that.
First, with the landowner issues, that is one of our bigger
challenges, and a lot of it is education. You know, if we are
going in with a new pipeline, it is having town halls, public
meetings, talking about our safety record, the monitoring and
mitigation measures that we have. Sometimes it may even be, and
Montana is a good example, where we have done these 100
projects.
In many cases, the landowners at first have been in
opposition to that, but once we get in front of the county
commissioners, have the town hall meetings, explain to them
here is what we are doing, we are going deeper into the river,
we are making the pipeline safer, then everyone really gets on
board with that. So that is one piece of it.
As far as the monitoring, you know, that was really another
cultural improvement that came out starting in about 2010,
2011. That was an NTSB recommendation. PHMSA put out a control
room management rule in 2010 that was a big part of that
improvement. A lot of the incidents back in that timeframe, you
would see a lot of the volume released, was not necessarily
from the original release, but the control center trying to
restart the pipeline.
So that is a cultural change in the control center. We call
it ``think leak.'' And in our control center we tell them if
there is any doubt whatsoever, shut the pipeline down. We have
instances, for example, where a landowner may be out taking a
walk. They smell something, and they see our pipeline marker.
They call us. We shut it down. And sometimes it may just be a
dead animal on the right-of-way, right, or something like that,
but we do not take any chances with that.
And I will give you two examples. We have had--we had two--
one of the things that we wanted to go after following the
Marshall release was pipeline ruptures, and so we put out a
white paper on that. And then at Phillips, we actually had two
pipeline ruptures in 2013. One was an excavator that hit the
pipeline, and the other was a landslide. In both cases, our
control center saw those--the pressure changes and everything
on the pipeline, within a couple of minutes had the pipeline
shut down in five minutes and blocked in. And in one case we
had personnel on the pipeline. By the time they called the
control center, they already had the line shut down and blocked
in.
So we see data very quickly. They are trained to respond
very quickly, and we have had some success at making those
changes.
Senator Fischer. And your response, when it--which I am
happy to hear it is a quick response, you shut it down. You
mentioned the restart and the issues there. Do you have
personnel on the ground to look at the pipeline to make sure it
is all right, if it is visible----
Mr. Denton. Exactly.
Senator Fischer.--to be able to monitor it, or do you
depend completely on the--on the computer's technology for it?
Mr. Denton. No, we have a full--we have a pretty robust
process now where--and it goes back to an incident that we had
several years ago, 10 years ago, where we did the same thing.
We started a pipeline. So now if we shut a pipeline down for
any reason, we will send local personnel out to confirm. We
will do what we call a standup test to confirm the integrity of
the pipeline, and then we get approval from the division
manager and the control center manager before we will restart
that pipeline.
Senator Fischer. How often do you have pipelines that are
shut down?
Mr. Denton. We on average probably average one a day. I
would say 5 to 10 a week.
Senator Fischer. And I guess when you look at the risks
involved, how serious a risk is it when the pipeline is shut
down compared to a dead animal that somebody smells that you
said--I mean, what----
Mr. Denton. For the most, if it is----
Senator Fischer. What I am looking for is the risk involved
to those pipelines.
Mr. Denton. Right. So a controlled shutdown is very safe.
We turn off the pumps, because pipelines go up and down.
Senator Fischer. The reason. The reason they are shut down
is what I am looking for.
Mr. Denton. Right, OK. So there can be several triggers,
right? So we have a lot of data. In fact, we have 40,000 data
points coming into our control center from the field, so we
have a lot of data, a lot of analysis that goes into that. We
have what we call line balancing.
So maybe they see a little bit of imbalance in the line, so
that will trigger a response. So we will get people involved,
and we will make an analysis. This does not look right, shut it
down, and then we will go investigate it. It may be an odor
complaint from the landowner. It may be an instantaneous where
we see, you know, the data is just obvious that it is. So those
are the type of things that prompt those shutdowns.
Senator Fischer. But how often is it a serious matter that
shuts it down?
Mr. Denton. Oh, I would say 99 percent of the time it is
not an issue, right? Whatever we shut the pipeline down for,
there was not a problem. So it, and----
Senator Fischer. So it is a pretty thorough monitoring
system.
Mr. Denton. It is. And, in fact, I remember we had a
meeting with NTSB Chairwoman, Deborah Hersman, a couple of
years ago, and she asked that very question about, you know,
OK, your controllers are paid to move the product through the
pipeline. And we said, no, they are paid to move the product
through the pipeline safely. That is the first priority. And
so, we never want to have--you know, if there is a spill, we
want to take care of it very quickly. But it is rare. It is
very rare.
Senator Fischer. Administrator, you have been ready to jump
in.
Ms. Dominguez. Sorry. I just wanted to--the reason I think
it is important to understand what Mr. Denton is referring to
is because the difference in operation that he is describing by
if they identify a potential leak, whether it is, you know, a
dead animal or any other anomaly that they are noticing in
their operation center. Their immediate response is to assess
it and shut the line down as opposed to taking the time to
identify somebody to go out, look. You know, there is time
involved in a physical inspection versus shutting it down, then
going to inspect.
And so, in the rare instance that there is in that one
percent out of your 99 percent, what I took away from our
discussion is that there is more prevention built in. There is
more risk reduced--risk is reduced as a result of actually
shutting it off. And shutting the pipeline off and
understanding what the harm might be, and then going back to a
safe restart versus, you know, potentially literally
containing----
Mr. Denton. Containing.
Ms. Dominguez. Yes, thank you.
Senator Fischer. And my last question on this area, people
are concerned about pipelines. How do they compare with moving
hazardous material by rail or by truck?
Mr. Denton. Our perspective, it is the safest way to move
hazardous liquids and just the sheer quantity that we move in
the United States. I mean, our pipeline company alone, we
deliver over two million barrels per day to multiple
destinations all throughout the United States. So it--for the--
for the quantity that we move, pipelines is generally the
safest way.
Senator Fischer. Administrator, do you have numbers on
that?
Ms. Dominguez. I do not have numbers on it. I know that
there--our responsibility at PHMSA is to make sure--our mission
literally is to make sure that there is the safe transportation
of all hazardous materials, regardless of mode. So as you know,
we work both with rail, freight, highway, and pipeline to make
sure that every mode that we are working with is as safe as
possible.
Senator Fischer. And how do pipelines compare?
Ms. Dominguez. Pipelines are very safe. We are doing
everything that we can for every mode of transportation to make
sure that they are as safe as possible, regardless of the mode.
Senator Fischer. OK, thank you very much.
Mr. Denton. And we believe rail is a safe way as well. In
fact, we do move some crude oil by rail. We need--we need both.
Senator Fischer. Thank you. Senator Daines?
Senator Daines. Thank you, Chairman Fischer. I just want to
zero in on a Montana question. And I was looking at your
testimony, Administrator, about the major river crossings where
we have pipelines. And if I am reading the information
correctly, since 2011, we have gone from 24 HDD crossings, the
horizontal directional drilling crossings, to now 41, so there
have been 17 since 2011. Of the 64 major river crossings--I
guess we define ``major'' as 100 feet or more. So there are 23
across our state that still would not be HDD.
My question is, how should we think about that? What is the
plan? Is that--what kind of risk does that present right now
for our bigger rivers?
Ms. Dominguez. So after the 2011 incident, there was a
report that we participated in with the Governor of Montana.
There was a task force that was put together, and really looked
at assessing all of the river crossings throughout the state.
The majority of those that we identified as the most
significant risk have been HDD drilled.
Moving forward, there is still additional work that we are
doing in terms of assessing and monitoring, but we believe that
the majority of them, with the exception--all of them have been
HDD drilled, except the one here in Billings, which was
determined by all parties involved that the--because of the
stable environment of the Yellowstone in this particular area,
the rip-rap and other measures that have been taken, that HDD
probably was not the best way moving forward to move product.
But nonetheless, the risk has been reduced in that particular
area.
Senator Daines. We just saw that in the video, an example
of that. Just for everybody who is watching, how deep--if we go
do an HDD crossing, how deep are we below the river bed?
Ms. Dominguez. I am going to turn that over to my
colleague.
Mr. Denton. Typically we would go 40 feet below the river
bed, but it also depends on the potential scour.
Senator Fischer. Potential?
Mr. Denton. Scour. Also it depends on the--you know, we
have some land movement issues in Montana. There are instances
where we have gone 200 feet deep to get under potential slip
plains that exist out in the hills. So it really depends on
every situation, and it also depends on the conditions--the
soil, the rock--what kind of things you are running into.
Senator Daines. Is there something built into the
inspection methodology that relates to when you have a major
runoff event? I think every Montanan knew from the winter of
2010--when you saw the Yellowstone in the spring of 2011, I
distinctly remember crossing the Yellowstone there at
Springdale. My wife and I got out of our pickup, and we saw
these huge cottonwoods come rushing down the Yellowstone, the
forces of water. They were doing tremendous changes in what is
going on there at the river bed.
Is that built--that seemed like a pretty common sense
thing. When that kind of event happens, that ought to raise a
lot of alarms if we do not have a HDD crossing.
Ms. Dominguez. We actually have built in our inspection
criteria literally, rather, GIS data that we are working to--
that we collect with--along with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the U.S. Geological Survey. It is part of our
inspection routine as we go out through the course of our
inspections, and look to see how we can--and what we are doing
is looking to see how we can further enhance the data that we
do collect to make sure that we are knowing everything we can
about river crossings.
Senator Daines. And are there any other--of these major
river crossings that are not HDD, how many are planned to be
converted to HDD in the next couple of years? Do we have any
sense for that in Montana? There are--there are 23 remaining if
I am doing my math properly.
Mr. Denton. So I do not know the exact number. Like I said,
we have got 100 projects that we identified that we need to do.
We are probably about 80 percent through with that. Some of the
remaining ones are HDD. Some will be traditional cut-ins and
lowerings.
But I will say, back to your comment about assessing the
risk, that is really in the PHMSA regulations already. We are
required to assess those risks and those threats and respond to
those, including river crossings. So the burden is on us to do
those assessments. The 2011 flooding obviously pointed that out
that we need to do more.
Senator Daines. Right.
Mr. Denton. And so, today we have--we are kicking off that
strategic initiative where we think we can put a lot more
specific guidance out there, because today it is really more
focused on new construction, but there is a lot of existing
pipelines that we need to make sure we are assessing and
mitigating those risks.
Senator Daines. OK. And, I guess, the engineer in me, I
could not resist when you mentioned ``smart pigging.'' Maybe
give us the quick 30 seconds. What is that doing to help us
reduce the risk of a spill?
Mr. Denton. So, again, that really----
Senator Daines. It does not involve pork production, I do
not think.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Denton. No. It is also called ``in-line inspection,''
but it is basically a small computer that you put through a
pipeline, and there are several different types. So we look for
deformation. So we call those dent tools where someone may have
dented your pipeline and it could be a risk for failure. There
is what is called magnetic flux tools that basically magnetizes
the pipe, looks for metal loss on the pipe. There are crack
tools looking for tiny, small cracks that might not show up on
a different type of tool. We have positional tools that we can
run to see if the pipeline is moving from land movement, things
like that. So there are a lot of different tools.
And back to some of the comments earlier about the seven-
year requirement. In liquids pipelines, it is five years, so we
are required to reassess every 5 years. And depending on the
situation, we may do it every 3 years depending on the risks
for that pipeline. So with the smart pigging, the in-line
inspection tools have been a huge benefit, and they are getting
better and better every year. And we are--that is another piece
of our strategic improvement is more research and development
on improving those tools.
Senator Daines. OK. Thank you.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Daines. This will
probably be my last questions unless you stir me on here. The
talk about inspections, that it is 7 years, or five years, or 3
years, and we have the pigs going in, and all sorts of things I
think with technology that can be available.
So I would like to ask all of you, what do you see
advancements in technology doing for this business and for the
inspections, but also how do you evaluate risk? Is it--is it
location of pipelines, depth, materials used when they were
built, the age of them? How do you make those risk assessments?
And then I would ask the administrator if the inspection
timeline is going to be adjusted for high-risk pipelines as you
move forward in the future. So however you want to start on
that.
Mr. Denton. I will start with the risk piece of it. So
every operator has a risk management program, and it is
essentially divided into two parts. So the threats: what are
the--what are the threats to pipeline, and then, what are the
consequences? And you combine those two together, and that is
your risk.
So we have in our risk management program multiple--we have
like nine different threat categories, so it may be third-party
damage. It may be corrosion. It may be manufacturing defects,
construction quality, things like that. And then there are
multiple subcategories under each of those. So we assess
thousands of segments based on those threats, and then we look
at the consequences.
And so, just taking river crossings as an example, so like
our--the consequences we will look at population impact,
drinking water impact, ecological impact, as well as waterway
impacts.
Senator Fischer. And if could interrupt you.
Mr. Denton. Sure.
Senator Fischer. As you are--as you are looking at all the
impacts here, do you bring in stakeholders? Do you bring in the
commissioner? Do you bring in local elected officials? How do
you manage that?
Mr. Denton. Sometimes. We often bring in third party
technical consultants, for example, so----
Senator Fischer. Well, I am talking about local people. Do
you bring in local people? Commissioner, are you involved in
any of it?
Mr. Ostlund. Chairwoman Fischer and Senator Daines, thanks
for the question. Yes. The answer is, yes, and, of course, Mr.
Denton not being local. We have regular meetings. In fact,
Yellowstone County has a disaster and emergency services
director and along with the refineries and the pipeline
companies checking their crossings on a regular basis every
year during the flood stages of the river. And when we have
potentials for disaster, our DES director, along with our road
and bridge department, spends extra time looking at the river,
evaluating all of the spots.
Typically, you will find pipelines near bridges, and that--
it is spots where you can find significant erosion, so we
monitor those very closely not only to protect the roads, but
to protect the pipelines. I do have regular meetings with all
the local refinery executives. I sit on the Exxon Refineries
Advisory Board--Community Advisory Board and meet regularly
with the other refineries to talk about mitigation and ways
that we can work together to make the system work. So I think
the input and the exchange there is very good and very healthy.
And with regard to inspections, something that has not been
mentioned in the process today is that local refineries do hire
us, private companies around here that do aviation inspections
of all the lines across the State. And so, there is a regular
routine patrol done by aircraft or helicopter that goes
around----
Senator Fischer. Drones? Do you use drones yet?
Mr. Ostlund. Well, I cannot answer that question yet.
Mr. Denton. They are looking at it.
Mr. Ostlund. Yes, but they go out and look, and they look
for spots where you might see oil to the surface of the ground,
or you might excavation near a pipeline or whatever, and they
report back. So I think the communication is very good at the
local level. Thank you for the question.
Mr. Denton. And the answer is we do include local
officials, especially on new projects, things like that, but we
do need that input. What are the consequences in your
community, right, if we have a spill? And so, that is one of
the inputs into our model as well.
Senator Fischer. And I would assume you have plans then in
the manner that you contact the community. We just saw a river
damaged in Colorado because--well, I guess that was under the
watch of the EPA and I know local communities, and a lot of the
different political subdivisions we are hearing did not get
that information right away. Do you have plans that we can let
people know something is occurring that does have an effect on
them, that they can be contacted?
Mr. Denton. Absolutely, and we obviously want them to know
about that ahead of time even if something does happen. But,
yes, we--in fact, we do very large-scale drills every year. We
had one in Spokane, Washington a few months ago, and we bring
in all of the local responders. We will bring in EPA. PHMSA
will participate. We will even bring in our peer companies to
critique that drill, and then county commissioners. And we will
do a full-scale--we will even have a media mockup, you know,
press conferences, things like that. And we will deploy
equipment out on the rivers and rights-of-ways, you know. It is
a good opportunity because every time we do that, we learn
something.
Senator Fischer. Right.
Mr. Denton. You can add this and do this better.
Senator Fischer. Right. So, Administrator, how are you
going to bring all this to look at your regulations and deal
with high risk?
Ms. Dominguez. Thank you for the question, Senator. Before
I forget, I want to mention one thing. Speaking of drills
really quickly, there is actually a drill that is being
conducted here in terms of emergency response. It was done over
the last 2 days up in Northwest Montana, Flathead region. So I
am hoping--looking to see the results of that exercise, but I
hope--I hope it went well. But it is a coordination amongst all
the emergency responders as well as the operators to make sure
that we are doing things well.
Moving forward, I think that one of the opportunities that
we have is to further enhance and further inform our risk
modeling system. And as we said, this is an opportunity to make
sure that the integrity--one of the things that Congress has
been very focused on and we greatly appreciate it is making
sure that our integrity management system, which really gets at
this risk-based modeling, is as informed as it possibly can be
because what we do, as I said before, is we set the minimum
criteria that we hope operators then take and inform their
larger risk models that they operate for their systems. Some of
our rules that we are engaging in now will further enhance that
data collection and further inform it.
I also think that we were talking briefly about the
facility response plans. One of the things we are doing is we
have reviewed literally every facility response plan that has
been filed with the Agency over the course of the last two
years. We are looking to make sure that operators are--have a
current operation plan filed, and are executing accordingly in
the event that there is an incident. So we want to make sure
that those are as up to date as possible.
It is a constant exercise. It takes a lot of energy and
resources. We are trying to do all we can to make sure that we
are as up to date on those response plans as possible.
Senator Fischer. Great. Thank you. Senator Daines?
Senator Daines. All right. I think we are getting close to
wrapping up, but I want to direct a question to Commissioner
Ostlund regarding another pipeline that became quite famous,
perhaps infamous, called the Keystone pipeline. You are a
publicly elected official. You are involved in managing
Yellowstone County. You see this is creating jobs. You see them
pay taxes. You have got to make all those decisions here as you
look at revenues coming in from your tax base and economic
growth or an economic downturn perhaps, and the investments
that you ultimately make in our community.
How would this impact--how would the Keystone pipeline
impact Yellowstone County, Montana as you see it? Should we be
allowed to construct it and get that project completed?
Mr. Ostlund. Senator Daines, thank you for the question. I
think the answer to that is pretty easily achievable. We are
looking right now at a downturn in oil prices in the Bakken,
and, of course, you can see the economic impact in Billings, in
the region, in Williston, North Dakota. And across the State,
the pipelines and distribution lines pay 13 percent of the
total property tax revenue collected by the State of Montana.
If you add in the refineries and if we were to get the
Keystone, you can probably see that percentage, over 20
percent. So one-fifth of the revenue collected by the State of
Montana.
It would add jobs in a state where they are always
important. It would offer us an opportunity to hook onto that
line to deliver Montana-made products, which are oil and gas
down to the refineries. I see nothing but benefit from the
Keystone pipeline.
But, most importantly, it allows us a chance to address our
national security. We should have all of our oil and gas
available from continents that we support, trust, and believe
in, and not be reliant upon OPEC to deliver oil and gas over
here. We have the available technology. We have the reserves.
We have the ability to build the pipeline. It would benefit our
country, and our State, and our county significantly.
And quite honestly, the Montana Association of Counties has
sent a number of letters to all the senators, including
yourselves, supporting the Keystone pipeline, and 100 percent
of the oil and gas counties in Eastern Montana have signed onto
that. And we think it would be a valuable resource, and we
certainly think it needs to be built.
Senator Daines. And from a technology viewpoint--this might
be for Mr. Denton--where is the Keystone pipeline in terms of
the technology advances? How would that pipeline be in
comparison to other pipelines?
Mr. Denton. So I cannot speak completely for TransCanada,
but from what I understand it will be, as are many pipelines
constructed today, the best technology. It is better steel. It
is better coding. We are doing directional drills, underwater
crossings, you know. That is much more common in new
construction, probably the top leak detection type things. And
we are--in fact, we have another initiative that is a
construction quality management system that we are working on.
TransCanada will be a big part of that and contributing to
that effort with lessons learned that they are doing on that
pipeline. Many others are building big pipelines as well, and
so we hope to have more collaborative efforts like that and
take the best practices of all.
Senator Daines. OK. My follow-up--my last question to the
Administrator, as the Administrator of PHMSA, what will you do
to facilitate the construction of safe operation of new
pipelines? Looking at all the projections, we are going to be
building pipelines in this country for many, many years to
come. How will you lead to encourage and facilitate the
construction of new pipelines to make sure it is done in a
timely manner?
Ms. Dominguez. Senator Daines, I really appreciate the
question because I think that new construction is terribly
important. I think that as we look to--we, as you know, set our
regulations to make sure that there is safe construction, and
those criteria are actually being met as the pipe is going into
the ground.
It is a very vulnerable time for a pipeline. The
construction, the first few years of operation, it requires a
lot of monitoring. It requires a lot of inspection. It is, you
know--if you look at pipeline risks and failures, new--when it
is new and it goes into the ground, it is one of the first
opportunities that we have to actually make sure that things
are going well. Also on the back end as it looks to age there
are things that also indicate some harm moving forward. So,
again, it is a little bit of, you know, on both ends of that
bathtub curve opportunity.
So with new construction, we are working very hard with
advancing our inspection force to make sure that we are able to
put enough inspectors out to review the new pipe that is going
into the ground and make sure that it is being done well, and
it is following our standards. And then also working with our
operators to make sure that they are going above and beyond to
make sure that they are understanding any trends that they
might be seeing, and informing us as well as others about how
things are going as they operate.
Senator Daines. Thank you. Thanks, Chairman Fischer.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Daines.
The hearing record will remain open for two weeks, and
during this time, Senators are asked to submit any questions
for the record. Upon receipt, the witnesses are requested to
submit their written answers to the Committee as soon as
possible.
I have also received a number of requests to submit public
comments for the record, and these can be submitted
electronically through the Commerce Committee website within
the next 2 weeks. I ask unanimous consent that any comments be
entered into the official record.
Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
Prepared Statement of MAPPS--An Association of Photogrammetry, Mapping
and Geospatial Firms
MAPPS (www.mapps.org) is a national association of private sector
geospatial firms. Our member firms span the entire spectrum of the
geospatial community, including satellite and airborne remote sensing,
surveying, photogrammetry, aerial photography, LiDAR, hydrography,
bathymetry, charting, aerial and satellite image processing, GPS, and
GIS data collection and conversion services and companies that provide
hardware, software, products and services to the geospatial profession
in the United States and other firms from around the world. A
significant number of our member firms are prime contractors or
subcontractors to USDOT, PHMSA and other Federal agencies, and to the
state and local governments that receive Federal grant monies, as well
as to private sector pipeline operators, utilities, and other
commercial clients.
We enthusiastically support the oversight of pipeline safety by
Senators Fischer of Nebraska and Daines of Montana. We commend this
leadership on the ongoing focus on reauthorization of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and related
activities and programs.
MAPPS is deeply concerned about the lack of location data on
pipelines, as well as other underground infrastructure and utilities.
This is an important missing ingredient in assuring pipeline safety, as
well as providing for accident prevention and post-incident mitigation.
In July 2015, at a hearing held by the House Committee on Energy
and Commerce on the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job
Creation Act of 2011, Stacy Cummings, then-Interim Executive Director
of PHMSA testified that:
``PHMSA has consistently requested additional funding to
support enhancing our risk management, analytical frameworks
and mapping capabilities. Through PHMSA grants, state pipeline
safety programs are funded up to 80 percent, but PHMSA has
limited insight into state data on where interstate pipelines
actually exist, their conditions, and the inspection reports
performed by our state partners.''
In January 2013, at a hearing on pipeline safety, then-Commerce
Committee Chairman Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) said:
``They crisscross underneath our cities and country sides, yet
most of the time we are not even aware they are there. They
deliver critical fuel that powers our homes, factories, and
offices, and also transport the oil and gas that keep our cars,
trucks, and planes operating . . . Compared to other forms of
transportation, pipelines are a relatively safe, clean and
efficient way of transporting the goods they carry.
Unfortunately, this is not always the case . . . Lack of
records about older pipelines is a real problem and contributed
to a catastrophic pipeline explosion in California that killed
several people.''
As recently as January 2013, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) released a study (GAO-13-168) on pipeline safety urging ``better
data'' with an emphasis on ``location'', ``proximity'' and
``topography.''
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has also issued
numerous accident reports, findings, and recommendations regarding the
location of pipelines, utilities and infrastructure. In January, 2015,
NTSB adopted a safety study on integrity management of gas transmission
pipelines in high consequence areas that calls for
``expanded and improved resources and guidance at the Federal
level, including improvements to the National Pipeline Mapping
System and better integration of geographic information system
(GIS) technology.''
Existing records have many problems. A large number of these
records are either positionally inaccurate, reference physical features
that may no longer exist, are incapable of being found, were altered
during conversion to other formats, or have other problems.
It is estimated that the pipelines in the United States could
encircle the Earth 25 times. The American Public Works Association
estimates that an underground utility line is hit somewhere in the
United States every 60 seconds. There is a critical need for current,
accurate location data regarding pipelines.
Geospatial information directly influences all aspects of Accurate
Safe Utility Location (ASUL) risk assessment and emergency management.
Advanced location surveying technologies, including light detection and
ranging (LiDAR), sonar, radar and imagery, provide input into
Geographic Information System (GIS) data and other geospatial assets
are of most critical value in emergency response during the initial
hours and days immediately following any incident. When utilized in the
field at specific incident response locations, ASUL maps can be
effective and life-saving tools. In California, a utility's disastrous
gas pipeline incident brought forth an emergency plan from an
independent review panel, NTSB, industry associations and regulators
such as PHMSA, California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), former
NTSB leadership, American Gas Association (AGA), Interstate Natural Gas
Association of America (INGAA) and others.
Over the past decade, many deaths, injuries, and billions of
dollars in repairs to the utilities and damaged property have been
associated with poorly mapped or maintained distribution systems.
Millions of dollars in environmental cleanup, countless road and
facility closures, and dozens of evacuations are the additional results
of these breakdowns. It is important to note that these systems most
often physically parallel and work in tandem with existing
transportation corridors, such as railroad and highway structures.
These systems connect nearly every household to a common grid, often
exposing citizens to unsafe and potentially explosive conditions.
Because Federal, state and local governments control the corridor
rights-of-way, report, and react to incidents (through state One Call,
Miss Utility, or 811 systems), and issue permits for projects
surrounding these systems, accurate geo-location surveying and mapping
must be in place so that these facilities are not damaged or allowed to
further deteriorate.
Federal officials, transportation designers, telecom, and utilities
and pipeline operators, as well as government, need accurate location
information to manage existing underground infrastructure and plan for
future growth and development. Surveys and maps of underground
utilities are often inaccurate. In many cases, they don't even exist.
The lack of location data is often cited by the NTSB, GAO, and other
authorities as a factor in pipeline and other utility accidents. The
inaccuracy of location data, unmarked utilities, and crowding within
rights of way are major factors contributing to disruption to
underground infrastructure. Digging, drilling or excavating in the
vicinity of unknown, unmarked, unmapped, or incorrectly located
utilities can be costly in terms of wasted excavation time, service
disruption and utility downtime, environmental damage, and--worst of
all--personal injury or loss of life. One Call, Miss Utility, or 811
systems are often nonresponsive to surveyors.
An Accurate Safe Utility Location + Infrastructure Mapping Reform
(ASUL+IMR) is needed for accurate location of America's underground
utilities. This data partnership program will save lives, time, and
money. Such a partnership should begin with current private sector
protocols and practices and be open to evolving standards and
technologies. This initiative should include both management of
physical infrastructure, the information technology systems used to
manage our most basic daily consumption of power, water,
communications, transportation and natural gas, and be compatible with
One Call, Miss Utility, or 811 systems. Accurate geospatial location
can enable safe corridor utility distribution through surveying and
mapping data sets provided by and for terrestrial and mobile LiDAR;
acoustical sounding; data from ground penetrating radar as well as
other applicable geophysical technologies; GPS; structures and
topography; critical infrastructure; cadastral; airborne imagery and
elevation; and transportation and pipeline. Small businesses providing
surveying, mapping and geospatial data, products and technologies can
work closely with utilities, end users, and government to provide
innovation and flexibility in the planning, mitigation, response, and
remediation phase.
Federal officials, transportation designers, telecom, and utilities
and pipeline operators, as well as government, need accurate location
information to manage existing underground infrastructure and plan for
future growth and development. Surveys and maps of underground
utilities are often inaccurate. In many cases, they don't even exist.
The inaccuracy of location data, unmarked utilities, and crowding
within rights of way are major factors contributing to disruption to
underground infrastructure. Digging, drilling or excavating in the
vicinity of unknown, unmarked, unmapped, or incorrectly located
utilities can be costly in terms of wasted excavation time, service
disruption and utility downtime, environmental damage, and--worst of
all--personal injury or loss of life. Many location records do not
reflect the ``as-built'' location of the infrastructure.
MAPPS respectfully urges the Committee to enable safe corridor
utility distribution through legislative reforms that will apply cost-
effective, current, state-of-the-art professional geospatial services
and technology to location requirements in Federal law governing
pipeline and underground utility safety. Conformance with American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) standard guideline 38-02 for the
collection and depiction of existing subsurface utility data will help
contribute to public health, safety and welfare.
Once again, thank you for your leadership and MAPPS stands ready to
work with the Senate and the Committee to enact legislation allowing
for safer operation of pipelines.
______
Prepared Statement of the National Society of Professional Surveyors
(NSPS)
The National Society of Professional Surveyors (NSPS) is the
national voice of land surveying professionals throughout the United
States.
As Congress acts to reauthorize the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) as well as activities and
programs related to pipeline safety and operation, NSPS is deeply
concerned about the lack of location data on pipelines, as well as
other underground infrastructure and utilities.
We bring to the attention of the Committee the challenges in
accounting for and coordinating location data for all such pipelines as
aggregated by Federal agencies as such data is gathered from state and
local government entities, or other non-Federal sources.
In April 2015, the Obama Administration cited ``approximately 2.6
million miles of pipeline'' given that there is not a comprehensive
inventory or database for all such pipelines and related surveying and
mapping data. Citing past disasters caused by factors such as
extraordinary natural events, and ever-aging infrastructure, the White
House urged in the Quadrennial Energy Report (QER) a $2.5 to $3.5
billion investment to replace the most at-risk natural gas pipelines--a
number that is only a fraction of the $270 billion the report says is
needed to address leak-prone distribution mains across the country. The
report painted a stark picture of the state of that infrastructure,
citing aging and increasingly unreliable steel and cast-iron pipelines
particularly prone to rupture, often with devastating consequences. In
a tragic example, a 30-inch underground natural gas pipeline exploded
in September 2010 in San Bruno, California, causing a fire that killed
eight people, injured 58 and destroyed 38 homes.
Discrepancies exist with regard to mileage and classification data,
related to location data, as compiled in two governmental reports in
2013. The Congressionally authorized National Academies of Science
(NAS) report found that:
``Most of the estimated 55,000 miles of crude oil transmission
pipeline in the United States are interconnected to form a
national network that links oil production regions, storage
hubs, and refineries. This extensive network accounts for more
than 90 percent of the ton-mileage of crude oil transported
within the United States.''
Additionally, the report stated:
``Pipeline systems traverse different terrains and can vary in
specific design features, components, and configurations.''
A January 2013 Congressional Research Service (CRS) report said
that:
``Nearly half a million miles of pipeline transporting natural
gas, oil, and other hazardous liquids crisscross the United
States . . . Recent pipeline accidents in Marshall, MI, San
Bruno, CA, Allentown, PA, and Laurel, MT, have heightened
congressional concern about pipeline risks and drawn criticism
from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).''
The CRS report went on to articulate the role of geospatial data in
recent law:
``In 2006, questions were raised about the accuracy of pipeline
location data provided by operators and maintained by PHMSA in
the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS). At the time,
agency officials reportedly acknowledged limitations in NPMS
accuracy, but did not publicly discuss plans to address them.
P.L. 112-90 authorizes PHMSA to collect additional geospatial
and technical data from pipeline operators to achieve the
purposes of the NPMS. Congress may review whether these or
other statutory measures are sufficient to verify that pipeline
operator information is complete and correct, particularly for
older parts of the pipeline network.''
NSPS urges Congress to enact safe corridor utility distribution
legislation whereby the expertise found in the professional surveying
and mapping community is robustly engaged to enhance pipeline and
underground utility safety.
Once again, thank you for your leadership and NSPS stands ready to
work with the Senate and the Committee to enact legislation allowing
for safer operation of pipelines.
______
Yellowstone River Conservation District Council
Billings, MT, September 18, 2015
Hon. Deb Fischer,
Hon. Steve Daines,
Hon. Jon Tester,
United States Senate.
Dear Senators Fischer, Daines and Tester,
On behalf of the Yellowstone River Conservation District Council
(YRCDC), I appreciate your efforts to hold this Senate Commerce,
Science, and Transportation Committee field hearing regarding
``Pipeline Safety: State and Local Perspectives'' in Billings, Montana.
For more than a decade the YRCDC has led the way in facilitating
dozens of meetings within the Yellowstone River corridor, with the
objective of providing a comprehensive scientific study of the
Yellowstone River.
This report presents the results of the Cumulative Effects Analysis
(CEA) conducted for the Yellowstone River Corridor Study. The corridor
study was led jointly by the U .S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Yellowstone River Conservation District Council, with participation
from multiple federal, state and local agencies, as well as several
non-profit organizations and private businesses.
This study has been undertaken as a result of public attention and
concerns about the combined effects of damaging flood events (1996 and
1997) and increased development pressures along the Yellowstone River
Corridor.
The study focuses on the 12 counties along the main stem river
corridor from Yellowstone National Park to the confluence with the
Missouri River in North Dakota.
One result of this study was the development of several scientific-
based recommended practices regarding current and future impacts in the
river corridor. These recommendations include valuable information
provided by the hazardous material pipeline risk assessment document
commissioned by the YRCDC.
Montana Conservation Districts are on the front line of resource
conservation development and protection. Our knowledge of local lands
and people are of great value to the many agencies involved with
protecting our lands and waterways.
The Yellowstone River Council has a great interest in providing
safe pipelines for the transport of oil, gas and other hazardous
materials, especially considering the inherent risks involved with over
the road and rail methods of transportation.
We encourage you to support the reauthorization of the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administrations valuable services in
overseeing and enforcing Federal regulations.
Montana depends on a vibrant business community that is enhanced by
the oil and gas industry, but we also count on those agencies that work
to protect our pristine landscape and environment. PHMSA provides those
protections and deserves your support.
Montana Conservation Districts and the Yellowstone River
Conservation District Council are on the front lines providing local
oversight and protections for Montana's waterways and we are eager to
support continued efforts to protect our neighborhoods in this ``Last
Best Place''.
Sincerely,
Don Youngbauer,
Chairman.
Cc: The Honorable Marie Therese Dominguez, PHMSA Administrator
______
7.1 Position Statement--Oil/Gas/Brine Water Pipeline Crossings
Background
Following the 2011 rupture and resulting oil spill from the
ExxonMobil Silvertip Pipeline near Laurel, the YRCDC commissioned a
hazardous material pipeline risk assessment that was completed in 2012.
A second pipeline oil spill near Glendive in January 2015 again
heightened public awareness of the vulnerability of these pipelines and
the environmental damage that can result from these spills. The
pipeline risk assessment shows the presence of 39 pipelines
intersecting the Yellowstone River 100-yr Channel Migration Zone (CMZ)
at 21 crossings. Thirty of the pipelines cross the channel while nine
pipelines are located within the CMZ.
Factors that affect pipeline failure risk are either internal or
external. Internal factors are intrinsic to the pipeline itself, such
as corrosion, weld failure or age. External factors are those that are
a function of the environment through which the pipeline must pass.
These external factors include lateral channel migration and channel
bed scour that can expose shallowly buried pipelines. Depth of cover,
bank armoring, and ``pinch points'', such as bridges, can exacerbate
the potential for pipeline exposure by concentrating the erosive forces
from floods and ice.
Exposed pipeline in the river at risk of being ruptured.
Recommended Installation and Management Guidelines
The following are guidelines for new and existing pipeline
crossings that the YRCDC wants the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Administration (PHMSA) and all pipeline companies responsible for
pipeline crossings on the Yellowstone River and tributaries to adopt.
Horizontal Directional Drilling: All new pipeline crossings
will use Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) technology that
places the pipeline at a minimum of 30 feet beneath the river
channel bottom. Crossings will be located on a stable straight
channel reach where possible. River bends and braided sections
should be avoided. The HDD entry and exit points will lie
outside the 100-yr CMZ boundary. All drilling pads, staging
areas and disturbed areas will be reclaimed following the HDD
pipeline installation.
Existing Pipelines: All existing at-risk pipelines
that were installed using open-trench technology will be
replaced using HDD technology following with the same
criteria as outlined for new pipelines.
Oversight: State and Federal oversight agencies must
require HDD technology be used on all new pipeline
crossings on the Yellowstone River mainstem and the
perennial/intermittent tributaries that feed into the
Yellowstone River.
Spill Detection: Spill detect ion and remote shutoff valve
technology will be incorporated into all pipelines to minimize
the volume of spilled material and expedite response time.
Pipeline Inspections: Pipeline companies need to conduct
annual inspections of pipeline crossings with special attention
given to real-time monitoring during major flood and ice jams.
Implementation Strategy
1. Pipeline Crossings Review: The YRCDC will work with member
Conservation Districts on a consistent policy that clarifies
their role in reviewing and commenting on new proposed pipeline
crossings or the replacement of existing ones in their
respective counties. The policy will further clarify the
applicability of 310 permits for pipeline crossings.
2. State and Federal Agency Coordination: The YRCDC will
periodically hold a meeting with state and Federal oversight
agencies to discuss the status of pipeline crossings throughout
the Yellowstone River Basin and to offer suggestions on design
criteria and agency oversight.
Specific Restoration Project Recommendations
None identified
Additional Information & Data Needs
(1) Pipeline Risk Assessment: Expand and update YRCDC's 2012
Pipeline Risk Assessment. Depth of cover data within the CMZ
for all 39 pipelines will be requested from the National
Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS) under the jurisdiction of PHMSA.
There will be a detailed risk of exposure assessment conducted
on each pipeline based on depth of cover and site specific
scour analysis.
______
Montana Association of Conservation Districts
Helena, MT, September 23, 2015
Senator Steve Daines (RMT), and Senator Deb Fischer (RNE), Chairman of
the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Infrastructure, Safety,
and Security Subcommittee, Washington, DC
Dear Senators Daines and Fischer:
We are writing concerning the Senate Commerce, Science, and
Transportation Committee field hearing entitled ``Pipeline Safety:
State and Local Perspectives'' held on Friday, September 18th at
Montana State University, Billings.
Please consider this letter our formal comments to be entered into
the record regarding the pipeline safety hearing.
1. We would like to express our interest in safe pipelines across
the USA.
2. We would like to bring to light that Conservation Districts have
an 80 year + knowledge of local people, lands and waterways.
3. We would request that you include Conservation Districts early on
in the case of a spill. We believe that our knowledge of local
lands and people would be of value.
4. We would like to mention that there are 3,000 Districts
nationwide with 15,000 locally elected officials.
5. We would like to mention that in some states such as Montana,
Districts have specific responsibilities ref waterways
regarding stream crossing permits.
6. In Montana at least, we would like to participate in trainings to
learn technical aspects of pipeline stream crossings. This
might best be accomplished at one of our annual conventions.
Thank you for your consideration.
Elena Evans,
Executive Director,
Montana Association of Conservation Districts.
Senator Fischer. With that, I would like to thank all of
you for being here today. I think we have had a very
informative and good discussion. Thank you to our panelists.
Thank you, Senator Daines. Great job. Love Montana.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Steve Daines to
Hon. Marie Therese Dominguez
Question 1. Ms. Dominguez, thank you for traveling to Montana,
taking the time to hear first-hand from Montana officials, pipeline
operators, and community stakeholders. A major concern raised during
the hearing was PHMSA's slow inspection report turnaround time. As a
Montana operator highlighted, they sometimes have to wait one year
following and inspection to receive a report from PHMSA. What is
PHMSA's target inspection report turnaround time? What is PHMSA doing
to expedite reports and notices following an inspection so operators
can address any deficiencies?
Answer. The PHMSA pipeline inspection process is a risk-driven,
data-informed process that evaluates the safety and compliance of
pipeline systems. Many of these systems are large and involve thousands
of miles of pipelines and multiple pump/compressor facilities. A
typical inspection requires 2-5 engineers/inspectors and lasts 3-8
months. The PHMSA inspection process is composed of multiple stages,
including:
Pre-Inspection Review of Data and Inspection Planning
PHMSA analyzes all known information about a pipeline
company and its pipeline system(s), including material risk
factors, proximity to people and sensitive environmental
areas, and incident and compliance histories.
The analysis helps PHMSA decide where to focus its
inspections of operator processes, records, and facilities,
and often requires the full team one-two weeks to complete.
The Inspection is composed of five distinct parts, which
typically occur over 3-8 months:
Entrance Interview: PHMSA meets with company officials
to outline the scope of the inspection and establish the
detailed inspection schedule so that appropriate company
personnel are available during the subsequent inspection.
Procedure Review: PHMSA reviews the company's
processes and procedural manuals to determine compliance
with Federal safety standards.
Records Review: PHMSA reviews the company's operations
and maintenance records to identify any safety issues and
to determine if the records reflect compliance with Federal
safety standards and the company's own procedures.
Field/Facility Review: PHMSA conducts an on-site
inspection and evaluation of multiple field locations
throughout the system being inspected. This may include
multiple pump/compressor facilities and mainline pipeline/
valve installations.
Exit Interview: PHMSA conducts an exit interview at
the end of every inspection and often at significant
``pause points'' in between. During these discussions,
PHMSA identifies to company representatives any safety
concerns or probable violations. It is important to note
that company representatives do not need to wait until they
receive a formal enforcement letter to act upon safety
concerns and probable violations.
Inspection Report Time Frames: PHMSA staff's own performance
plans provide target completion timeframes for inspection
paperwork:
Preliminary Inspection Report--30 days after
completion of the inspection.
Final Inspection Report--60 days after completion of
the inspection.
When all available information has been assembled, PHMSA decides
which issues, if any, identified during an inspection or accident
investigation warrant enforcement actions, and which type of
enforcement tool to apply for each issue. These decisions dictate what
type of evidentiary documentation is needed to validate an enforcement
case. Probable violations of Federal safety standards may need a
proposed civil penalty, a proposed compliance order, and a legal
review. An enforcement notice letter is then prepared that clearly
alleges the violations and includes a Violation Report, which presents
the full extent of PHMSA's evidence proving the violations and supports
the proposed penalty, if applicable. PHMSA has established target times
from the end of its on-site inspection to the issuance of an
enforcement notice letter. These target times depend on the enforcement
tool used, as follows:
For Notice of Probable Violation cases--225 days
For Warning Letter cases--120 days
For Notice of Amendment cases--200 days
In 2014, the actual median times were:
For Notice of Probable Violation cases--230 days
For Warning Letter cases--90 days
For Notice of Amendment cases--264 days
PHMSA has undertaken a number of initiatives to speed up the
inspection and enforcement process, recognizing that expediting our
enforcement process is important to ensure that operators promptly
correct non-compliances, and to provide greater fairness by apprising
operators of the agency's position in a timely manner. These have
included recently modifying our procedures to allow for the issuance of
critical enforcement actions in mid-inspection, rather than waiting for
the completion of the full 3-8 month inspection process. PHMSA also
issues monthly internal case-management reports that compile
performance metrics on the processing of cases for each enforcement
step, compared against established target times for key enforcement
steps, and holds accountable those responsible for timely completion.
As a result of its initiatives, PHMSA has reversed a years-long
trend of increasing times between initiating and fully closing cases
that include proposed civil penalties or proposed compliance orders
(i.e., Notice of Probable Violation cases). From 2009 to 2014, the
average processing time decreased by 54 percent, from 1,370 days to 624
days. PHMSA continues the effort toward quicker case processing,
keeping in mind that our enforcement process allows for ``due
process,'' where the operator is given an opportunity to respond to the
allegations in our enforcement notice letters. As permitted by our
regulations, operators sometimes request informal hearings to defend
their actions and present their case. Subsequent to hearings, operators
are often provided additional time to submit further written material
supporting their case. These procedures can add to the total time from
initiation to closure.
Question 2. We hear in this Committee increasingly from witnesses
that performance and outcome based regulations are worth pursuing given
the proactive safety practices of industry and the rapid evolution of
technology. Based on my experiences in the private sector, I know
industry sets a high standard for safety and is most often the source
of safety technology innovation. What role will performance based
regulations play in future rulemaking as PHMSA works to complete
outstanding 2011 Congressional mandates? Will this help facilitate
innovation?
Answer. PHMSA's safety framework relies on a mix of performance-
based and prescriptive regulations Prescriptive regulations provide
operators with minimum safety requirements where appropriate and
performance-based regulations accommodate technical changes to improve
safety. This approach gives operators the flexibility to develop
innovative solutions that improve safety while addressing the unique
and changing risks of their specific systems.
Performance-based regulations have proven effective in addressing
the complexities of regulating vastly different systems and conditions
and encouraging innovation. They will continue to serve these purposes
as we continue to address the remaining 2011 mandates. PHMSA will
continue to seek opportunities to address these mandates, leverage new
technologies, share lessons learned from inspections and accident
investigations, and adopt best practices.
[all]
This page intentionally left blank.