{ "id": "R44201", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "R", "number": "R44201", "active": true, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov, EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "DOT\u2019s Federal Pipeline Safety Program: Background and Issues for Congress", "retrieved": "2023-05-04T04:03:41.479414", "id": "R44201_18_2023-03-31", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2023-03-31_R44201_3e99325f95c1df42dc3697c1a84418cdeb444f16.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44201/18", "sha1": "3e99325f95c1df42dc3697c1a84418cdeb444f16" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2023-03-31_R44201_3e99325f95c1df42dc3697c1a84418cdeb444f16.html" } ], "date": "2023-03-31", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R44201", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source_dir": "crsreports.congress.gov", "title": "DOT\u2019s Federal Pipeline Safety Program: Background and Issues for Congress", "retrieved": "2023-05-04T04:03:41.476087", "id": "R44201_15_2022-03-10", "formats": [ { "filename": "files/2022-03-10_R44201_5be4188ff988d039089135be0678142b77ba606d.pdf", "format": "PDF", "url": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44201/15", "sha1": "5be4188ff988d039089135be0678142b77ba606d" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/2022-03-10_R44201_5be4188ff988d039089135be0678142b77ba606d.html" } ], "date": "2022-03-10", "summary": null, "source": "CRSReports.Congress.gov", "typeId": "R", "active": true, "sourceLink": "https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/details?prodcode=R44201", "type": "CRS Report" }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 595359, "date": "2019-03-29", "retrieved": "2019-12-20T19:37:09.168400", "title": "DOT\u2019s Federal Pipeline Safety Program: Background and Key Issues for Congress", "summary": "The U.S. energy pipeline network is composed of approximately 3 million miles of pipeline transporting natural gas, oil, and other hazardous liquids. Recent incidents in California, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and other states have drawn criticism from stakeholders and have raised concerns in Congress about pipeline safety. The Department of Energy\u2019s (DOE\u2019s) 2015 Quadrennial Energy Review also highlighted pipeline safety as an issue for the nation\u2019s energy infrastructure. Recent incident statistics suggest there is opportunity for safety improvement.\nThe federal pipeline safety program is administered by the Department of Transportation\u2019s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), which relies heavily on state partnerships for inspection and enforcement of its regulations. PHMSA\u2019s pipeline safety program is authorized through FY2019. For FY2019, PHMSA\u2019s estimated budget authority is approximately $164 million\u2014more than double the agency\u2019s budget authority in FY2008 (not adjusted for inflation). Much of PHMSA\u2019s funding is for inspectors. However, due to private sector competition, the agency faces persistent challenges recruiting and retaining the staff for which it is funded. The Trump Administration\u2019s requested budget authority for PHMSA is approximately $151 million for FY2020, roughly 8% less than the FY2019 amount. The request would only slightly reduce PHMSA staffing but proposes cuts in state grants that could impact staffing at state pipeline safety agencies. In the wake of major incidents involving facilities under state jurisdiction, some state programs have come under scrutiny regarding their effectiveness and oversight by PHMSA.\nCongress has used past reauthorizations to impose various mandates on PHMSA regarding standards, studies, and other elements of pipeline safety regulation. The Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-90) and the PIPES Act of 2016 (P.L. 114-183) together included 61 such mandates. As of March 5, 2019, according to PHMSA, the agency had completed 34 of 42 mandates under P.L. 112-90 and 16 of 19 mandates under P.L. 114-183. PHMSA also has not satisfied a number of safety recommendations from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). Some in Congress are concerned that major mandates and NTSB recommendations remain unfulfilled.\nThe NTSB highlighted aging pipelines as a particular concern in its 2019-2020 Most Wanted List of Transportation Safety Improvements. Likewise, Congress has ongoing interest in the safety of older transmission pipelines and in the replacement of leaky and deteriorating cast iron pipe in natural gas distribution systems. Recent accidents involving older pipelines and related infrastructure may refocus attention on PHMSA\u2019s regulation of pipe replacement (currently voluntary), pipeline modernization projects and work packages, older pipeline records, safety management systems, and other issues related to aging pipelines.\nOngoing physical and cyber threats against the nation\u2019s pipelines since passage of the PIPES Act have heightened concerns about pipeline security risks. Although the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has the primary statutory authority over pipeline security, pipeline safety and security are intertwined\u2014and PHMSA is involved in both. Under the terms of a 2006 agreement, PHMSA and TSA are directed to work together \u201cto delineate clear lines of authority ... in the area of transportation security.\u201d While PHMSA reports ongoing cooperation with TSA, questions remain about what this cooperation entails and the ongoing roles of the two agencies.\nIn addition to these specific issues, Congress may assess how the various elements of U.S. pipeline safety and security fit together in the nation\u2019s overall approach to protect the public and the environment. This approach involves federal and state agencies, pipeline associations, large and small pipeline operators, and local communities. Reviewing how these various groups work together to achieve common goals could be an overarching consideration for Congress.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44201", "sha1": "8dd10c9cc68f09a292e00b683e9aedf63c51993b", "filename": "files/20190329_R44201_8dd10c9cc68f09a292e00b683e9aedf63c51993b.html", "images": { "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44201_files&id=/0.png": "files/20190329_R44201_images_dc295477ec16b2487541c5e37922569e08d8188b.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44201_files&id=/3.png": "files/20190329_R44201_images_3d04ae76bfdff5dd5138b78c66abe1ff3424d4d4.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44201_files&id=/1.png": "files/20190329_R44201_images_75cb66dbd536aa9c93a152f376280ac799d8ba69.png", "/products/Getimages/?directory=R/html/R44201_files&id=/2.png": "files/20190329_R44201_images_bac9689ce56cdfd9f5a2226ddfad39344db5f846.png" } }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "https://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44201", "sha1": "6e05ead40dbbf2272bc3f6c16c2883d741dd5028", "filename": "files/20190329_R44201_6e05ead40dbbf2272bc3f6c16c2883d741dd5028.pdf", "images": {} } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4812, "name": "Fossil Energy" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4821, "name": "Domestic Security" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4884, "name": "Critical Infrastructure" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4885, "name": "Transportation Security" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4939, "name": "Transportation Safety" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 454219, "date": "2016-07-07", "retrieved": "2016-11-28T21:57:13.498212", "title": "DOT\u2019s Federal Pipeline Safety Program: Background and Key Issues for Congress", "summary": "The U.S. energy pipeline network is composed of over 2.9 million miles of pipeline transporting natural gas, oil, and other hazardous liquids. Recent accidents in Michigan, Arkansas, and California have drawn criticism from the National Transportation Safety Board and have raised congressional concern about pipeline risks. The Department of Energy\u2019s (DOE\u2019s) Quadrennial Energy Review also highlighted pipeline safety as an issue for the nation\u2019s energy infrastructure. Trends in pipeline accidents suggest there continues to be opportunity for safety improvement.\nThe federal pipeline safety program resides within the Department of Transportation\u2019s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), although its inspection and enforcement activities rely heavily upon state partnerships. Some in Congress have criticized inspector staffing at PHMSA as being insufficient to cover all pipelines under the agency\u2019s jurisdiction. Funding for inspectors at PHMSA has grown significantly in recent years. For FY2016, PHMSA\u2019s total budget authority is approximately $147 million\u2014more than double the agency\u2019s budget authority in FY2006. But PHMSA has a record of persistent understaffing relative to its funding. Filling inspector positions poses practical challenges for the agency.\nA recent natural gas leak at the Aliso Canyon Underground Storage Facility in California released 5.4 billion cubic feet of natural gas and caused the temporary relocation of over 2,000 households and two schools. Both the occurrence of the leak, and the length of time it took to stop it, raised concerns about the risks of such facilities and about state regulations to insure their safety. The DOE and PHMSA have since announced an interagency task force to \u201cinitiate regulatory actions to help ensure the safety of natural gas storage facilities.\u201d\nPHMSA has yet to complete key regulatory mandates imposed by the Pipeline Safety Act of 2011, including mandates related to automatic shutoff valves, integrity management expansion, leak detection, and maximum allowable operating pressure. Congress has expressed frustration with the agency\u2019s failure to fulfill these mandates. Other issues of concern include the regulation of gathering lines, the effectiveness of PHMSA\u2019s safety enforcement, aging gas distribution pipelines, and new methane emissions rules from the Environmental Protection Agency.\nTo authorize the federal pipeline safety program through FY2019, President Obama signed the SAFE PIPES Act (P.L. 114-183) on June 22, 2016. The act authorizes appropriations for FY2017 slightly higher than in FY2016 with small annual increases thereafter. Among other provisions, the act requires PHMSA to promulgate federal safety standards for underground natural gas storage facilities and would grant PHMSA emergency order authority to address urgent \u201cindustry-wide safety conditions\u201d without prior notice. The act also requires PHMSA to report regularly on the progress of outstanding statutory mandates.\nWhether ongoing efforts by industry, combined with additional resources for PHMSA and new regulations, will enhance the safety of U.S. pipelines remains to be seen. Pipeline safety necessarily involves many groups: federal and state agencies, pipeline associations, pipeline operators, and local communities. Reviewing how these groups work together to achieve common goals could be an overarching concern for Congress.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44201", "sha1": "0ff266685906de5b8c0b0d57ad06616e0d5de00b", "filename": "files/20160707_R44201_0ff266685906de5b8c0b0d57ad06616e0d5de00b.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44201", "sha1": "d247aedf346d5db7891d6df009481f409f2ce898", "filename": "files/20160707_R44201_d247aedf346d5db7891d6df009481f409f2ce898.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4812, "name": "Fossil Energy" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4821, "name": "Domestic Security" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4884, "name": "Critical Infrastructure" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4885, "name": "Transportation Security" }, { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4939, "name": "Transportation Safety" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 452789, "date": "2016-05-20", "retrieved": "2016-06-21T21:15:49.536819", "title": "DOT\u2019s Federal Pipeline Safety Program: Background and Key Issues for Congress", "summary": "The U.S. energy pipeline network is composed of over 2.9 million miles of pipeline transporting natural gas, oil, and other hazardous liquids. Recent accidents in Michigan, Arkansas, and California have drawn criticism from the National Transportation Safety Board and have raised congressional concern about pipeline risks. The Department of Energy\u2019s (DOE) Quadrennial Energy Review also highlighted pipeline safety as an issue for the nation\u2019s energy infrastructure. Trends in pipeline accidents suggest there continues to be opportunity for safety improvement.\nThe federal pipeline safety program resides within the Department of Transportation\u2019s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), although its inspection and enforcement activities rely heavily upon state partnerships. Some in Congress have criticized inspector staffing at PHMSA as being insufficient to cover all pipelines under the agency\u2019s jurisdiction. Funding for inspectors at PHMSA has grown significantly in recent years. For FY2017, PHMSA\u2019s budget request is approximately $179 million\u2014more than double the agency\u2019s budget authority in FY2007. But PHMSA has a record of persistent understaffing relative to its funding. Filling inspector positions poses practical challenges for the agency. Direct-hire authority could help alleviate this understaffing, but may not resolve it. \nA recent natural gas leak at the Aliso Canyon Underground Storage Facility in California released 5.4 billion cubic feet of natural gas and caused the temporary relocation of over 2,000 households and two schools. Both the occurrence of the leak, and the length of time it took to stop it, raised concerns about the risks of such facilities and about state regulations to insure their safety. The DOE and PHMSA have since announced an interagency task force to \u201cinitiate regulatory actions to help ensure the safety of natural gas storage facilities.\u201d However, Congress is considering proposals requiring PHMSA to mandate nationwide federal regulations. In addition, Congress is debating PHMSA\u2019s request for emergency order authority, which would permit the agency to address urgent \u201cindustry-wide safety conditions\u201d without prior notice. \nPHMSA has yet to complete key regulatory mandates imposed by the Pipeline Safety Act of 2011, including mandates related to automatic shutoff valves, integrity management expansion, leak detection, and maximum allowable operating pressure. Congress has expressed frustration with the agency\u2019s failure to fulfill these mandates. Other issues of concern include the regulation of gathering lines, the effectiveness of PHMSA\u2019s safety enforcement, aging gas distribution pipelines, and new methane emissions rules from the Environmental Protection Agency.\nTo authorize the federal pipeline safety program through FY2019, the Senate has passed the SAFE PIPES Act (S. 2276), and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee has reported the Protecting our Infrastructure of Pipelines and Enhancing Safety (PIPES) Act of 2016 (H.R. 4937). The House Energy and Commerce Committee has reported the Pipeline Safety Act of 2016 (H.R. 5050), which would authorize appropriations through FY2021. All the reauthorization bills above would fund PHMSA at levels lower than the President\u2019s budget request. They would also require PHMSA to promulgate federal safety standards for underground natural gas storage facilities, as would the Natural Gas Leak Prevention Act (H.R. 4429) and the Underground Storage Safety Act (H.R. 4578). However the bills would all prioritize PHMSA\u2019s completion of existing mandates before new ones. S. 2276 and H.R. 5050 would both grant PHMSA direct-hire authority. Only the House bills would grant emergency order authority.\nWhether ongoing efforts by industry, combined with additional resources for PHMSA and new regulations, will enhance the safety of U.S. pipelines remains to be seen. Pipeline safety necessarily involves many groups: federal and state agencies, pipeline associations, pipeline operators, and local communities. Reviewing how these groups work together to achieve common goals could be an overarching concern for Congress.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44201", "sha1": "79774644f6ba91bff70b680c7bce8e66c7ab65bb", "filename": "files/20160520_R44201_79774644f6ba91bff70b680c7bce8e66c7ab65bb.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44201", "sha1": "f8c764a89439655ed037c2a6952fdf3a93d33a33", "filename": "files/20160520_R44201_f8c764a89439655ed037c2a6952fdf3a93d33a33.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4585, "name": "Homeland Security" } ] }, { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 445677, "date": "2015-09-22", "retrieved": "2016-04-06T18:20:05.160329", "title": "DOT\u2019s Federal Pipeline Safety Program: Background and Key Issues for Congress", "summary": "Altogether, the U.S. energy pipeline network is composed of over 2.9 million miles of pipeline transporting natural gas, oil, and other hazardous liquids. While an efficient and comparatively safe means of transport, many pipelines carry materials with the potential to cause public injury, costly destruction, and environmental damage. The nation\u2019s pipeline networks are also widespread and vulnerable to accidents. Recent pipeline accidents in Marshall, MI, San Bruno, CA, New York City, and Santa Barbara, CA, have heightened congressional concern about pipeline risks and drawn criticism from the National Transportation Safety Board. The Department of Energy\u2019s first Quadrennial Energy Review also highlighted pipeline safety as a growing concern for the nation\u2019s energy infrastructure. Both government and industry have taken numerous steps to improve pipeline safety over the last 10 years. Nonetheless, the spate of recent pipeline incidents suggests there continues to be opportunity for improvement.\nThe federal program for pipeline safety resides primarily with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) within the Department of Transportation (DOT), although its inspection and enforcement activities rely heavily upon partnerships with state pipeline safety agencies. PHMSA\u2019s appropriations are authorized through FY2015 under the Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of 2011 (P.L. 112-90). The act contained a broad range of provisions addressing pipeline safety. Among the most significant were provisions to increase the number of federal pipeline safety inspectors, require automatic shutoff valves for transmission pipelines, mandate verification of maximum allowable operating pressure for gas transmission pipelines, and increase civil penalties for pipeline safety violations. In total, the act imposed 42 mandates on PHMSA regarding studies, rules, maps, and other elements of the federal pipeline safety program. While PHMSA has fulfilled many of these mandates, 16 remain incomplete, including several key mandates with potentially large impacts nationwide. In addition to these mandates, policymakers have expressed concerns about the adequacy of PHMSA\u2019s resources, the effectiveness of PHMSA\u2019s enforcement, its oversight of state pipeline safety programs, the potential regulation of currently unregulated gathering lines, and other regulatory issues.\nWhether the ongoing efforts by industry, combined with additional oversight by federal agencies, will further enhance the safety of U.S. pipelines remains to be seen. As Congress continues its oversight of the federal pipeline safety program, it may assess how the various elements of U.S. pipeline safety fit together in the nation\u2019s overall strategy to protect the public and the environment. Pipeline safety necessarily involves many groups: federal agencies, oil and gas pipeline associations, large and small pipeline operators, and local communities. Reviewing how these groups work together to achieve common goals could be an overarching concern for Congress.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44201", "sha1": "bf6c257560a85543636055579f787b78ecd810a4", "filename": "files/20150922_R44201_bf6c257560a85543636055579f787b78ecd810a4.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44201", "sha1": "f71f85ad32798b1f396ebd63258c25d50e118a09", "filename": "files/20150922_R44201_f71f85ad32798b1f396ebd63258c25d50e118a09.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [ { "source": "IBCList", "id": 4585, "name": "Homeland Security" } ] } ], "topics": [ "Energy Policy", "Environmental Policy" ] }