Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

107th Congress                                            Rept. 107-475
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session                                                      Part 1




                  May 16, 2002.--Ordered to be printed


  Mr. Boehlert, from the Committee on Science, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 3929]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

  The Committee on Science, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 
3929) to provide for the establishment of a cooperative Federal 
research, development, and demonstration program to ensure the 
integrity of pipeline facilities, and for other purposes, 
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an 
amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.


   I. Amendment.......................................................1
  II. Purpose of the Bill.............................................4
 III. Background and Need for the Legislation.........................4
  IV. Summary of Hearing..............................................5
   V. Committee Actions...............................................6
  VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill.........................7
 VII. Section-By-Section Analysis (By Title and Section)..............7
VIII. Committee Views.................................................8
  IX. Cost Estimate..................................................11
   X. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate......................11
  XI. Compliance with Public Law 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates)...........12
 XII. Committee Oversight Findings and Recommendations...............12
XIII. Statement on General Performance Goals and Objectives..........12
 XIV. Constitutional Authority Statement.............................12
  XV. Federal Advisory Committee Statement...........................12
 XVI. Congressional Accountability Act...............................13
XVII. Statement on Preemption of State, Local, or Tribal Law.........13
XVIII.Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, As Reported..........13

 XIX. Committee Recommendations......................................13
  XX. Proceedings of Full Committee Markup...........................13

                              I. AMENDMENT

  The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 


  This Act may be cited as the ``Energy Pipeline Research, Development, 
and Demonstration Act''.


  The Congress finds that--
          (1) energy pipelines are a key component of the energy 
        infrastructure of the United States;
          (2) pipelines can become more susceptible to failure with 
          (3) energy pipelines with unprotected rights-of-way and 
        associated above-ground facilities are vulnerable to terrorist 
        attacks and other disruptions and raise safety concerns;
          (4) interruptions in service on major pipelines, whether a 
        result of pipeline failure or purposeful action, can have 
        enormous consequences for the economy and security of the 
        United States;
          (5) new energy sources such as hydrogen will require a new 
        generation of pipelines; and
          (6) a more coordinated research, development, demonstration, 
        and standardization program is needed to ensure the use of 
        existing technologies and the development of new technologies 
        to increase the safety and security of these critical 


  (a) Establishment of Cooperative Program.--
          (1) In general.--The heads of the participating agencies 
        shall develop and implement a program of research, development, 
        demonstration, and standardization to ensure the integrity of 
        energy pipelines and next-generation pipelines.
          (2) Elements.--The program shall include research, 
        development, demonstration, and standardization activities 
        related to--
                  (A) materials inspection;
                  (B) stress and fracture analysis, detection of 
                cracks, corrosion, abrasion, and other abnormalities 
                inside pipelines that lead to pipeline failure, and 
                development of new equipment or technologies that are 
                inserted into pipelines to detect anomalies;
                  (C) internal inspection and leak detection 
                technologies, including detection of leaks at very low 
                  (D) methods of analyzing content of pipeline 
                  (E) pipeline security, including improving the real-
                time surveillance of pipeline rights-of-way, developing 
                tools for evaluating and enhancing pipeline security 
                and infrastructure, reducing natural, technological, 
                and terrorist threats, and protecting first response 
                units and persons near an incident;
                  (F) risk assessment methodology, including 
                vulnerability assessment and reduction of third-party 
                  (G) communication, control, and information systems 
                  (H) fire safety of pipelines;
                  (I) improved excavation, construction, and repair 
                technologies; and
                  (J) other elements the heads of the participating 
                agencies consider appropriate.
          (3) Activities and capabilities report.--Not later than 6 
        months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
        participating agencies shall transmit to the Congress a report 
        on the existing activities and capabilities of the 
        participating agencies, including the national laboratories. 
        The report shall include the results of a survey by the 
        participating agencies of any activities of other Federal 
        agencies that are relevant to or could supplement existing 
        research, development, demonstration, and standardization 
        activities under the program created under this section.
  (b) Program Plan.--
          (1) In general.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
        enactment of this Act, the participating agencies shall prepare 
        and transmit to Congress a 5-year program plan to guide 
        activities under this section. Such program plan shall be 
        submitted to the Pipeline Integrity Technical Advisory 
        Committee established under subsection (c) for review, and the 
        report to Congress shall include the comments of the Advisory 
        Committee. The 5-year program plan shall take into account 
        related activities of Federal agencies that are not 
        participating agencies.
          (2) Consultation.--In preparing the program plan, the 
        participating agencies shall consult with appropriate 
        representatives of State and local government and the private 
        sector, including companies owning energy pipelines and 
        developers of next-generation pipelines, to help establish 
        program priorities.
          (3) Advice from other entities.--In preparing the program 
        plan, the participating agencies shall also seek the advice of 
        other Federal agencies, utilities, manufacturers, institutions 
        of higher learning, pipeline research institutions, national 
        laboratories, environmental organizations, pipeline safety 
        advocates, professional and technical societies, and any other 
        appropriate entities.
  (c) Pipeline Integrity Technical Advisory Committee.--
          (1) Establishment.--The participating agencies shall 
        establish and manage a Pipeline Integrity Technical Advisory 
        Committee (in this subsection referred to as the ``Advisory 
        Committee''). The Advisory Committee shall be established not 
        later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this 
          (2) Duties.--The Advisory Committee shall--
                  (A) advise the participating agencies on the 
                development and implementation of the program plan 
                prepared under subsection (b); and
                  (B) have a continuing role in evaluating the progress 
                and results of research, development, demonstration, 
                and standardization activities carried out under this 
          (3) Membership.--
                  (A) Appointment.--The Advisory Committee shall be 
                composed of--
                          (i) 3 members appointed by the Secretary of 
                          (ii) 3 members appointed by the Secretary of 
                        Transportation; and
                          (iii) 3 members appointed by the Director of 
                        the National Institute of Standards and 
                In making appointments, the participating agencies 
                shall seek recommendations from the National Academy of 
                  (B) Qualifications.--Members appointed to the 
                Advisory Committee shall have experience or be 
                technically qualified, by training or knowledge, in the 
                operations of the pipeline industry, and have 
                experience in the research and development of pipeline 
                or related technologies.
                  (C) Compensation.--The members of the Advisory 
                Committee shall serve without compensation, but shall 
                receive travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of 
                subsistence, in accordance with sections 5702 and 5703 
                of title 5, United States Code.
          (4) Meetings.--The Advisory Committee shall meet at least 4 
        times each year.
          (5) Termination.--The Advisory Committee shall terminate 5 
        years after its establishment.
  (d) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the participating 
agencies shall each transmit to the Congress a report on the status and 
results to date of the implementation of their portion of the program 
plan prepared under subsection (b).


  Not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the participating agencies shall enter into a memorandum of 
understanding detailing their respective responsibilities under this 
Act, consistent with the activities and capabilities identified under 
section 3(a)(3). Each of the participating agencies shall have the 
primary responsibility for ensuring that the elements of the program 
plan within its jurisdiction are implemented in accordance with this 
Act. The Department of Transportation's responsibilities shall reflect 
its expertise in pipeline inspection and information systems surety. 
The Department of Energy's responsibilities shall reflect its expertise 
in low-volume leak detection and surveillance technologies. The 
National Institute of Standards and Technology's responsibilities shall 
reflect its expertise in standards and materials research.


  There are authorized to be appropriated--
          (1) to the Secretary of Energy $10,000,000;
          (2) to the Secretary of Transportation $5,000,000; and
          (3) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
for each of the fiscal years 2003 through 2007 for carrying out this 


  For purposes of this Act--
          (1) the term ``energy pipeline'' means a pipeline system used 
        in the transmission or local distribution of natural gas 
        (including liquefied natural gas), crude oil, or refined 
        petroleum products;
          (2) the term ``next-generation pipeline'' means a 
        transmission or local distribution pipeline system designed to 
        transmit energy or energy-related products, in liquid or 
        gaseous form, other than energy pipelines;
          (3) the term ``participating agencies'' means the Department 
        of Energy, the Department of Transportation, and the National 
        Institute of Standards and Technology; and
          (4) the term ``pipeline'' means an energy pipeline or a next-
        generation pipeline.

                        II. PURPOSE OF THE BILL

    This bill authorizes cooperative Federal research, 
development, and demonstration (RD&D;) programs to be conducted 
by the Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Transportation 
(DOT) and in the National Institute for Standards and 
Technology (NIST) to ensure the integrity of energy pipelines. 
This program will develop methods and technologies to help 
prevent pipeline failures from all causes, including, but not 
limited to accidental pipeline breaches and intentional 


    There are approximately 2.1 million miles of pipelines in 
the U.S. transporting natural gas, crude oil, petroleum and 
other products. The DOT regulates these pipelines in 
partnership with state regulators. States have regulatory 
responsibility for intrastate pipelines, while the Federal 
Government oversees the interstate pipeline system. Research 
and Development (R&D; is critical to support the government's 
regulatory mission and to assist industry's efforts to optimize 
safety and improve performance and reliability of the nation's 
pipelines. Currently, research on the safety and security of 
the nation's gas and product pipelines is conducted by DOE, 
which operates on general revenue funding, and DOT, through the 
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), which 
collects industry user fees for R&D.; RSPA's research efforts 
are an essential part of DOT's regulatory mission, but some 
question whether RSPA's research effort may be too focused on 
pipeline regulatory goals. The programs authorized under this 
Act at DOE, DOT and the new program to be established at NIST 
are designed to supplement the fee-based research at RSPA and 
to ensure that any existing or future research gaps are filled.
    Pipeline integrity and safety are of critical importance to 
the public, both to reduce injuries and fatalities from 
pipeline failures and because of the importance of the products 
carried--natural gas, liquid products and, increasingly, 
hydrogen and other energy sources for the future. Pipeline 
accidents over the last several years have caused injuries and 
deaths around the country. Since September 11th, the fear of 
accidents has been exacerbated by the fear of terrorism. In 
many places pipelines carrying volatile materials are at or 
near the surface and pass through densely populated areas. 
These pipelines run along rights-of-way that are largely 
unprotected and not under constant surveillance.
    Pipeline breaches, whether accidents or intentional, pose a 
danger to the public and to the environment. Incidents over the 
past number of years have caused fatalities, including a large 
accident at Carlsbad, New Mexico in August 2000 that killed 10 
people; an explosion in Bellingham, Washington, in June 1999 
that killed three; and an accident at South Riding, Virginia in 
the summer of 1998 that killed one.
    The loss of pipeline capacity in constrained markets can 
also create energy shortages that have far-reaching economic 
consequences. Pipeline accidents can cause price spikes or a 
longer-term price rise. However, R&D; can help reduce incidents, 
and ensure rapid recovery to minimize risks.
    Pipeline Safety reauthorization has been taken up several 
times in the past several years. The Senate passed 
comprehensive pipeline safety legislation by voice vote in 
September of 2000 but the House did not take up the bill. On 
February 13, 2001, the Senate again passed comprehensive 
legislation, S. 235, this time by a vote of 98 to 0. Several 
comprehensive pipeline safety bills have been introduced in the 
House, including H.R. 144 (by Mr. Dingell and Mr. Oberstar), 
H.R. 459 (by Mr. Larson), H.R. 2749 (by Ms. Dunn) and H.R. 3609 
(by Mr. Tauzin and Mr. Young). These bills cover a wide range 
of pipeline safety issues, including the qualification and 
training of pipeline safety personnel, pipeline integrity 
inspection, security at pipeline facilities, enforcement of 
pipeline safety requirements, public access to information 
about pipelines, state oversight, coordinated environmental 
review of pipeline projects, the use of cost-benefit analysis 
in regulatory decision-making, and the conduct of Federal 
pipeline safety research and development.
    On March 12, 2002, Mr. Hall of Texas introduced H.R. 3929, 
the Energy Pipeline Research, Development, and Demonstration 
Act, along with Mr. Smith of Texas. The Committee on Science 
marked up H.R. 3929 on March 20th. The legislation will address 
some of the research needs posed by the Nation's aging and 
vulnerable pipeline infrastructure and the need for a new 
generation of pipelines to transport products in the future. 
The bill sets out a RD&D; mission for the DOE, DOT and NIST. 
Both DOE and DOT have existing pipeline safety research 
programs, but the Administration proposes to transfer DOE's 
research program functions to DOT in FY 2003. The DOE program 
would be preserved under provisions contained in H.R. 3929. In 
addition, the bill authorizes a research program to be 
undertaken by NIST to develop pipeline standards. NIST's 
research capabilities in materials research related to pipeline 
safety date back as far as World War II when NIST assisted the 
Navy in research on metal fatigue. Over the years, NIST has 
worked with both the American Gas Association and the American 
Petroleum Institute by making precise measurements of the flow 
rates of pipeline contents. In addition, NIST has some valuable 
experience in connection with the National Earthquake Hazards 
Research Program that will allow it to lend a variety of 
relevant expertise to efforts to improve pipeline safety.

                         IV. SUMMARY OF HEARING

    On March 13, 2002, the Subcommittee on Energy of the House 
Committee on Science held a hearing titled H.R. 3929: Energy 
Pipeline Research, Development, and Demonstration Act. This 
hearing examined the Committee's legislation, H.R. 3929 
designed to advance the science needed to protect the Nation's 
critical pipeline infrastructure from attack or failure. The 
Committee's legislation will increase R&D; efforts to improve 
surveillance, security, fault detection (including difficult-
to-detect low-level leaks), and to measure the robustness of 
pipeline materials. It is hoped that such research can reduce 
repair and recovery times after a pipeline failure. 
Witnessesincluded pipeline industry stakeholders who testified on 
provisions included in H.R. 3939 and on how a government/industry 
pipeline safety research partnership will best improve pipeline safety.
    Mr. Terry Boss, Vice President of Environment, Safety and 
Operations for the Interstate Natural Gas Association of 
America testified on the importance of pipeline research and 
the different funding mechanisms employed to finance these 
efforts. He indicated that new funding mechanisms need to be 
put in place to make up for the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (FERC) R&D; surcharge which expires in 2004. The FERC 
surcharge-funded research program has collected as much as $212 
million a year. He also raised some questions about NIST's role 
in pipeline safety R&D; and urged the Committee to give a higher 
priority to restoring DOE's funding.
    Mr. Tim Felt, the President of the Explorer Pipeline 
Corporation appeared on behalf of the Association of Oil Pipe 
Lines. He testified that the DOT's Office of Pipeline Safety 
has the longest experience in pipeline safety R&D; and perhaps 
the best understanding of the needs of the regulated community. 
He felt that DOE had an important R&D; role, since pipeline 
safety is such an important public and environmental priority, 
and DOE has access to general revenue funds. He discussed 
technologies that DOE has developed that may be useful for 
pipeline operators. Finally, he advised the committee to name a 
lead agency to minimize disagreement among the agencies about 
the roles and functions of each in the overall R&D; program 
authorized by H.R. 3929.
    Dr. Nirmal Chatterjee, Vice President of Environmental, 
Health and Safety and Corporate Engineering for Air Products 
and Chemicals, Inc. testified that hydrogen pipelines operate 
in a different manner from natural gas and products pipelines 
and, as such, will require substantially different R&D; efforts. 
These differences include enhanced leak flow detection, 
automated shut off valves and greater variability in pipeline 
diameter. He predicted that most hydrogen production would be 
local and said that he did not foresee the need for an 
extensive hydrogen pipeline system in the next 10-20 years.
    Mr. Stan Wise, a Commissioner with the Georgia Public 
Service Commission, appeared on behalf of the National 
Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC). His 
testimony focused on a NARUC R&D; funding resolution that is not 
a part of H.R. 3929. This mandatory funding scheme would 
collect approximately $65 million in funding for pipeline and 
storage R&D; programs and has the support of American Gas 
Association (which represents mostly local distribution 

                          V. Committee Actions

    On March 12, 2002, Ranking Minority Member Ralph Hall and 
Mr. Lamar Smith of the Committee on Science introduced H.R. 
3939, the Energy Pipeline Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Act, a bill to direct the heads of the DOE, DOT, 
and NIST to develop and implement a cooperative Federal 
research, development, demonstration, and standardization 
program to ensure the integrity of pipeline facilities. As 
summarized above, the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee 
on Science heard testimony relevant to the programs authorized 
in H.R. 3929 at a hearing on March 13, 2002. The Committee on 
Science met to consider H.R. 3929 on March 20, 2002, and 
entertained an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 
by Mr. Hall, Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on 
Science, on behalf of himself and Mr. Smith of Texas. The 
amendment, which was adopted by voice vote: (1) incorporates 
some recommendations of witnesses at the March 13th hearing, 
and written comments and consultations with other interested 
parties; (2) clarifies that the RD&D; program includes advances 
related to both traditional energy pipelines as well as ``next 
generation'' pipelines. (Section 6 defines ``next-generation 
pipelines'' to include any pipeline carrying energy or energy-
related products other than natural gas, crude oil or refined 
petroleum products); and, (3) makes several changes to the 
findings in Section 2 to clarify the scope of the bill and its 
provisions. The motion to adopt the bill, as amended, was 
agreed to by a voice vote. The motion to report the bill, as 
amended, was agreed to by a voice vote.

              VI. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill

    To provide for the establishment of a cooperative Federal 
RD&D; program to ensure the integrity and safety of pipelines 
and related facilities through a coordinated Federal program of 
pipeline safety RD&D;, and standardization program conducted by 
the DOE, DOT and NIST (identified as ``the participating 
agencies''). The bill:
     Requires that the participating agencies provide 
to Congress an analysis of their RD&D; and standardization 
capabilities and activities within six months of enactment of 
this legislation.
     Requires that the participating agencies submit to 
Congress within one year of enactment, a plan for RD&D; and 
standardization efforts to be undertaken under this 
     Establishes a Pipeline Integrity Technical 
Advisory Committee (PITAC).
     Directs PITAC to review the plan and provide 
ongoing assessments of the RD&D; and standardization efforts 
authorized under the Act.
     Calls upon the participating agencies to enter 
into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) within 120 days of 
enactment to outline research capabilities and responsibilities 
for each of the three agencies.
     Authorizes to be appropriated each fiscal year 
(2002-2006): $10,000,000 to DOE; $5,000,000 to DOT; and 
$5,000,000 to NIST. These funds are in addition to any other 
fee-based funding used for pipeline research programs at DOT.

        VII. Section-by-Section Analysis (By Title and Section)

Section 1. Short title

    Subsection 1(a) cites the Act as the Energy Pipeline 
Research, Development, and Demonstration Act, and subsection 
1(b) contains the bill's table of contents.

Section 2. Findings

    Section 2 contains the Committee's findings on the need for 
this legislation.

Section 3. Pipeline integrity research, development, and demonstration

    Requires DOE, DOT, and NIST to develop and implement an 
RD&D; program focused on energy pipeline safety. Requires 
participating agencies to submit a report of activities and 
capabilities to Congress no later than six months after 
enactment and a five-year program plan to the PITAC no later 
than one year after enactment. The Act provides for 
coordination among participating agencies, state and local 
governments, and the pipeline industry with advice from a 
number of outside entities in preparing the plan. Establishes 
the PITAC to advise and evaluate the plan. The PITAC shall be 
composed of nine members, three each appointed by DOE, DOT and 
NIST under recommendations from the National Academy of 
Sciences. PITAC members shall be qualified technically and 
serve without compensation other than travel expenses. The 
PITAC will meet four times each year and will be terminated 
after five years. The participating agencies will submit annual 
reports on the status of their portion of the program.

Section 4. Memorandum of understanding

    Requires DOE, DOT and NIST to enter into a MOU detailing 
their roles in this program. DOT's responsibilities shall 
include pipeline inspection and information systems surety. 
DOE's responsibilities shall include low-volume leak detection 
and surveillance technologies. NIST's responsibilities shall 
include standards and materials research.

Section 5. Authorization of appropriations

    Authorizes to be appropriated each fiscal year (2002-2006): 
$10,000,000 to DOE, $5,000,000 to DOT and $5,000,000 to NIST. 
These funds are in addition to any other fee-based funding used 
for pipeline research programs at DOT.

Section 6. Definitions

    Defines ``participating agencies'' as the DOE, DOT and 

                         VIII. COMMITTEE VIEWS

Section 2. Findings

    Fire safety of pipelines, always a difficult problem, 
becomes more difficult in pipelines that move methanol, 
hydrogen, and other higher energy content fuels. Hydrogen is a 
particularly hazardous fuel; it is extremely reactive and leads 
to extremely high temperature fires. Both methanol and hydrogen 
flames are not detectable to the human eye which complicates 
both detection and fire fighting efforts, yet virtually no 
research has been done on developing optimal strategies for 
leak and fire detection. NIST's fire research division, which 
has decades of experience in developing, verifying, and 
utilizing fire measurements and methods of prediction is 
uniquely situated to help fill these research gaps. NIST has 
strong capabilities related to laboratory measurement of fire, 
integrating research results into models, and conducting large-
scale fire experiments to demonstrate the use and value of the 
research projects.

Section 3. Pipeline integrity research, development, and demonstration

    Section 3(a)(2)(B) contains language related to pipeline 
degradation including cracks, corrosion, abrasion and other 
abnormalities as well as stress and fractures, which can cause 
a range of problems, including catastrophic failure. Detection 
and analysis of problems before they become severe is essential 
to the safe, efficient and economic operation of pipelines. 
This section calls for an integrated research, development, 
demonstration and standardization program to improve our 
understanding of pipeline failure modes and stresses through 
improved technologies and analytical techniques. This RD&D; 
should include in-line inspection devices that can more 
reliably detect features such as hard spots, stress corrosion 
cracking, and other actual or potential points-of-failure and 
should include ``next-generation'' pipelines which are 
transmission pipelines other than oil and gas pipelines 
carrying new forms of energy such as hydrogen. These programs 
should take into account the unique characteristics of 
different pipelines and seek appropriate solutions for the 
different types of products, operating environments, physical 
layout, pipeline pressures and maintenance duty cycles.
    Section 3(a)(2)(C) calls for RD&D; on low-level pipeline 
leaks, which are difficult to detect by conventional means and 
are often a precursor to serious threats to health and 
environmental safety. Detection of these small leaks requires 
development of new, low-cost, high-confidence detection 
technologies and techniques. Research is needed to develop 
acoustic and fiber optic sensors, among others, to measure 
these parameters on-line and in real time. These detection 
methods must take into account the unique characteristics of 
different pipelines and seek appropriate solutions for the 
different types of products, operating environments, physical 
layout, pipeline pressure and maintenance duty cycles.
    The Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has extensive 
expertise in analytical technologies that could be employed for 
monitoring the integrity of the flowing material, leaks, aging, 
and other problems associated with pipelines. For example, 
external leak detection and analysis of the material in the 
pipeline could be accomplished with small, automated mass 
spectrometers, similar to those designed for the Department of 
Defense for chemical/biological threat agents. Microfabricated 
mass spectrometers and ion-mobility spectrometers being 
developed at ORNL are able to detect level concentrations of 
gas-phase species down to parts-per-billion levels and could be 
produced at low cost. Distributed arrays of such sensors would 
allow continuous remote monitoring of pipeline integrity.
    ORNL has expertise and unique facilities in materials 
research, inspection, stress and fracture analysis, and the 
detection of cracks. In one project focused on pipeline safety, 
an experimentally based model was developed that gives insight 
into the mechanisms involved when pipelines are hydrostatically 
proof tested in the field. Use of this model could help avoid 
the damage that sometimes results from such field testing. The 
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) is developing two 
technologies to ensure the integrity of pipelines in 
refineries: optical fiber based acoustic monitoring for 
analysis of cracking and corrosion; and optical-fiber-based 
spectroscopy for leak detection.
    Section 3(a)(2)(E) calls for development of improved 
surveillance of pipeline rights-of-way. This improved 
surveillance will be used to detect threats ranging from 
accidental construction damage to deliberate attack. These 
threats also consist of cyber threats to pipeline control and 
monitoring, and supervisory control and data acquisition 
(SCADA) systems.
    RD&D; under Section 3(a)(2)(F) should include LBNL's 
Exposure and Risk Analysis Group's world-recognized 
capabilities in risk assessment methodology with particular 
strengths in emissions-to-dose assessment, biokinetics, and 
methods for addressing uncertainty and variability.
    The purpose of the Activities and Capabilities Report 
required under section 3(a)(3) is to gather information and 
catalog expertise throughout the government and its 
laboratories related or useful to the pipeline hazard reduction 
RD&D; and standardization activities planned under this Act, 
thereby creating a baseline on which to structure the program 
plan required under 3(b). It is our hope that within six 
months, the participating agencies will be able to develop a 
clear picture of what is known and what is not known related to 
both traditional and next generation pipelines and that this 
knowledge will allow the plan to be developed in a way that 
minimizes unnecessary overlap among agencies, alerts all 
relevant agencies that this work will be undertaken, and 
ensures that all relevant agencies integrate their research 
planning so that this Act leads to the best possible use of the 
program's limited resources.
    The Committee intends that the appointees to PITAC under 
Section 3(c) have training and experience that is relevant and 
applicable to pipeline safety and security operations, not 
necessarily ``hands-on'' experience in the operation of 

Section 4. Memorandum of understanding

    Development of the MOU under Section 4 should require the 
participating agencies to coordinate in advance of carrying out 
any other activities under the Act to learn what other agencies 
bring to the program and to divide up responsibilities in a 
manner that minimizes duplication and that makes the best use 
of existing expertise. This section lists specific areas of 
expertise for the DOT, the DOE, and NIST that are clearly 
relevant to the work to be accomplished under the Act and which 
should be included in the MOU. However, since each of the 
agencies has far-ranging abilities, it is assumed that the MOU 
will be far more exhaustive than the statutory language and 
will list in each case more of the expertise that each agency 
brings to this project. The Committee on Science of the House 
of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
Transportation of the Senate expect to be kept informed of the 
progress towards development of the MOU and to be sent final 
versions of the MOU as soon as it becomes available.

Section 6. Definitions

    The term ``next-generation pipeline'' is meant to include 
all foreseeable types of pipelines needed to carry alternative 
liquid and gaseous fuels such as hydrogen and methanol, but is 
not meant to include incremental improvements in crude oil, 
natural gas, and refined petroleum product pipelines.

                           IX. COST ESTIMATE

    A cost estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of 
the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been timely submitted to 
the Committee on Science prior to the filing of this report and 
is included in Section X of this report pursuant to House Rule 
XIII, clause 3(c)(3).
    H.R. 3929 does contain new budget authority, credit 
authority, or changes in revenues or tax expenditures. Assuming 
that the sums authorized under the bill are appropriated, H.R. 
3929 does authorize additional discretionary spending, as 
described in the Congressional Budget Office report on the 
bill, which is contained in Section X of this report.


                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                     Washington, DC, April 5, 2002.
Hon. Sherwood L. Boehlert,
Chairman, Committee on Science,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3929, the Energy 
Pipeline Research, Development, and Demonstration Act.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Rachel 
                                          Barry B. Anderson
                                    (For Dan L. Crippen, Director).

H.R. 3929--Energy Pipeline Research, Development, and Demonstration Act

    Summary: H.R. 3929 would direct the Department of Energy, 
the Department of Transportation, and the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology to develop a five-year program for 
finding better ways to construct, inspect, and repair energy 
pipelines; reduce threats to energy pipelines from terrorists 
and the natural environment; and assess risks associated with 
energy pipelines. The bill would authorize the appropriation of 
$20 million a year over the 2003-2007 period for this new 
    CBO estimates that implementing this bill would cost $67 
million over the 2003-2007 period, and another $33 million 
after fiscal year 2007. Enacting H.R. 3929 would not affect 
direct spending or receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go 
procedures would not apply.
    H.R. 3929 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no cost on the budgets of state, local, or 
tribal governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of H.R. 3929 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 400 
(transportation). For this estimate, CBO assumes enactment of 
H.R. 3929 in fiscal year 2002 and appropriation of the 
authorized amounts. Estimates of spending are based on 
information from the Department of Energy and historical 
spending patterns of similar programs.

                                                                    By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                                  2003      2004      2005      2006      2007
Authorization level...........................................        20        20        20        20        20
Estimated outlays.............................................         3        11        15        18        20

    Pay-as-you-go considerations: None.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: H.R. 3929 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would impose no cost on the budgets of 
state, local, or tribal governments.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Rachel Milberg; impact 
on state, local, and tribal governments: Angela Seitz; impact 
on the private sector: Jean Talarico.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

        XI. Compliance With Public Law 104-4 (Unfunded Mandates)

    H.R. 3929 contains no unfunded mandates.

         xii. committee oversight findings and recommendations

    The Committee on Science's oversight findings and 
recommendations are reflected in the body of this report.


    Pursuant to clause (3)(c)(4) of House Rule XIII, the goal 
and objective of the bill is to authorize the DOT, DOE and NIST 
to develop and implement an R&D; program focused on enhancing 
energy pipeline safety.


    Article I, section 8 of the Constitution of the United 
States grants Congress the authority to enact H.R. 3929.


    Although DOT currently has two technical advisory 
committees that provide advice on technical aspects of the 
DOT's standard setting responsibilities, the functions of the 
Pipeline Integrity Technical Advisory Committee (PITAC) 
established by H.R. 3929 are not currently being nor could they 
be performed by one or more agencies or by enlarging the 
mandate of another existing advisory committee.
    The Office of Pipeline Safety in DOT has two advisory 
committees that have been mandated by legislation. The Natural 
Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968 requires establishment of the 
Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee (TPSSC), and the 
Hazardous Liquid Safety Act of 1979 requires creation of the 
Technical Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Standards Committee 
(THLPSSC). The primary purpose of these two existing Committees 
is to review proposed pipeline safety standards for technical 
feasibility, reasonableness, cost effectiveness and 
practicability. The Committees also serve as a sounding board 
for discussing pipeline safety policy issues as well as 
legislative initiatives. The PITAC, established under section 
3(c), on the other hand, would provide technical advice to the 
three participating agencies on the development and 
implementation of the RD&D; program and in evaluating the 
program's progress and results.


    The Committee finds that H.R. 3929 does not relate to the 
terms and conditions of employment or access to public services 
or accommodations within the meaning of section 102(b)(3) of 
the Congressional Accountability Act (Public Law 104-1).


    This bill is not intended to preempt any state, local, or 
tribal law.

      xviii. changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported

    This measure does not amend any existing Federal statute.


    On March 20, 2002, a quorum being present, the Committee on 
Science favorably reported H.R. 3929, Energy Pipeline Research, 
Development, and Demonstration Act, by a voice vote, and 
recommended its enactment.




                       WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 2002

                          House of Representatives,
                                      Committee on Science,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:40 a.m., in Room 
2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Sherwood L. 
Boehlert [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
    Chairman Boehlert. The Committee on Science will be in 
order. First of all, I would like to advise all members that 
there is a sign-up sheet before each individual place, 
reflecting the views and estimates, and we would like you to 
read the Committee's views and estimates, and hopefully, you 
will be inspired to sign the sheet indicating your approval. 
With that, let us get moving.
    The Committee on Science will be in order. Pursuant to 
notice, the Committee on Science is meeting today to consider 
the following measures. H.R. 2051, A Bill to Provide for the 
Establishment of Regional Plant Genome and Gene Expression 
Research and Development Centers. Thank you, Mr. Smith. H.R. 
3389, the National Sea Grant Program Act Amendments of 2002, 
and H.R. 3929, the Energy Pipeline Research, Development, and 
Demonstration Act.
    I ask unanimous consent for the authority to recess the 
Committee at any point, and without objection it is so ordered. 
Mr. Hall will be making his way here to present his opening 
remarks. Let me do mine.
    The three bills we have before us this morning deal with 
very different topics and come from three different 
subcommittees, but they do have a few key aspects in common. 
First, all three are bipartisan consensus bills. Once again, 
the Committee's majority and minority staffs have worked in 
tandem to draft the bills that advance proposals from members 
on both sides of the aisle. This Committee continues to set an 
example of working together that others would do well to 
follow. Also, all three bills are designed to promote research 
and development, especially, long-term research and development 
that will help address critical societal problems.
    H.R. 2051 was designed to help strengthen American 
agriculture and alleviate malnutrition in the developing world. 
H.R. 3389 will help protect the nation's coastal areas and 
fisheries and combat invasive species. And H.R. 3929 will help 
prevent pollution and pipeline explosions. These bills are not 
funding research for the sake of research whether they deal 
with abstruse matters of no concern to the rest of Congress or 
to the rest of the country. The research advances that will 
result from these measures will help improve the daily lives of 
people here and around the world. Let me say just a little bit 
more about each of these bills and then they will be described 
more fully by their sponsors as we mark up each one.
    H.R. 2051, offered by Chairman Nick Smith and Ranking 
Minority Member Eddie Bernice Johnson, will create two new 
programs on plant biotechnology at the National Science 
Foundation. The bill offers a balanced approach to biotech 
authorizing research not only to develop new genetic 
engineering techniques and products, but also, to examine the 
ecological and social consequences of bio-engineered plants.
    H.R. 3389, offered by Chairman Vernon Ehlers and Ranking 
Minority Member Jim Barcia, will reauthorize and reform the Sea 
Grant Program, while keeping it within the National 
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. We will have to 
negotiate a final version of the bill with the Resources 
Committee before it can come to the Floor, and we plan to push 
in a strong and unified fashion for our version of this bill. 
However, we will, as Dr. Ehlers has committed, find a way to 
address the concerns Mr. Underwood has raised about the way the 
Sea Grant Program deals with the Pacific Islands.
    Finally, we will take up H.R. 3929, offered by Ranking 
Minority Member Ralph Hall and Lamar Smith, which will ensure 
that all the federal agencies with expertise in pipeline safety 
are engaged in research in that important area. We will work 
with the Energy and Commerce, and Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committees to move our bill as part of a 
comprehensive pipeline safety measure.
    So we have much to accomplish today and we will do it in 
the bipartisan fashion that has become the Committee's 
hallmark. With that, the Chair recognizes Mr. Hall.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, as usual, you have covered the 
waterfront pretty well. I just want to say that I support these 
three bills. We will have an amendment for the third bill, but 
on H.R. 2051, I want to congratulate Nick Smith and Ranking 
Democratic Member Eddie Bernice Johnson for their efforts on 
it. And of course, on the Sea Grant Program, your bill, I 
certainly support that and look forward to working with you, 
and you have recognized Chairman Ehlers and Representative 
Barcia. And on my bill, I will have an amendment of 3929 that 
we will discuss when we have a little more time. With that, 
thank you for doing a good job, and I yield back the balance of 
my time.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
           Prepared Statement of Representative Ralph M. Hall
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,

    First of all I want to thank you for working with us to develop 
this bill and bring it to the Full Committee for markup today. This 
bill is the product of a close collaboration on both sides of the aisle 
to produce legislation that will be of immense value to this Nation in 
ensuring that the natural gas, crude oil and refined products pipelines 
of this country are safer and more secure facilities as we move into 
the 21st century. And we are taking the first steps toward addressing 
the special considerations that need to be considered in the 
development of what we call the next-generation pipelines--those that 
will carry hydrogen, CO2 and perhaps other substances that 
will be part of the energy infrastructure of the future.
    Our thanks also go to our staffs for their hard work in preparing 
the bill for our consideration today. The legislative process has 
worked as it should--we held a legislative hearing and got some first-
rate testimony on what the appropriate federal role should be in 
research and development. And we incorporated many of those 
recommendations in the substitute to the bill, which I will offer 
shortly. Other recommendations and suggestions will be reflected in the 
report to accompany the bill.
    These pipelines are an essential part of the Nation's energy 
infrastructure. They are so affected with the public interest that 
special efforts need to be taken now to make certain that new 
technologies are developed or existing technologies adapted to make 
certain that these facilities are as safe and secure as they can be--
and as soon as they can be.
    The bill brings the considerable capabilities of the Department of 
Energy (DOE) and its National Laboratories and the National Institute 
of Standards and Technology (NIST) to bear in a much more prominent way 
to provide solutions to the safety and security needs of the Nation's 
pipelines. The bill provides considerable flexibility to the 
participating agencies, the Department of Transportation, DOE and NIST, 
to develop a research plan--one that will be reviewed by a Technical 
Advisory Committee to ensure that the work being done is relevant and 
    Our intention is to merge this bill with the Pipeline Safety bill 
introduced by Don Young and Billy Tauzin. We believe that the language 
of this bill is very complementary and helpful to the larger bill, and 
we look forward to working with them, and the other members of the 
Transportation and Infrastructure and Energy and Commerce Committees in 
getting their support for these provisions.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

    Chairman Boehlert. Thank you very much. And let me tell 
you, it is the Chair's intent to move with dispatch. These 
bills have been looked at with the respective committee staffs. 
They are very able and very professional staffs, so we don't 
envision a long markup here. We have a hearing immediately 
after with some very distinguished guests, and I know a number 
of our colleagues have conflicting commitments. So without 
objection, all members' opening statements will be placed in 
the record at this point.

                               H.R. 3929

    11:03 a.m.
    Chairman Boehlert. We will now consider H.R. 3929, the 
Energy Pipeline Research, Development, and Demonstration Act. I 
ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered as read and 
open to amendment at any point. I ask the members to proceed 
with the amendments in the order on the roster. Without 
objection, so ordered.
    [H.R. 3929 follows:]
    Chairman Boehlert. The first amendment on the roster is an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Hall on 
behalf of himself and Mr. Smith of Texas. The Clerk will report 
the amendment.
    The Clerk. Amendment to H.R. 3929, offered by Mr. Hall of 
Texas and Mr. Smith of Texas.
    Chairman Boehlert. I ask unanimous consent to dispense with 
the reading. Without objection, so ordered. I now recognize the 
Ranking Member, the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Hall, for 5 
minutes to explain the amendment.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and Members of the 
Committee. The amendment we are offering today differs in 
several points from the original. Thanks to a lot of valuable 
feedback from the witnesses that you and that we together 
selected to testify for us last week, we have learned several 
things and made some changes, as much up-to-date changes as we 
could. In the finding section, we looked to amplify and clarify 
the scope and intent of the bill. For example, we removed some 
limiting language and the bill now includes all ``energy'' 
pipelines in its scope. Actually, we put an additional 
provision in the bill that defined energy pipelines as being 
natural gas, and crude oil, and refined products. That is on 
the last page, page 9, and includes LNG, and I think it is a 
good amendment, and I hope it will be accepted.
    In the events section, Section 3(a)(2), the substitute 
further highlights specific technologies for preventing and 
responding to pipeline failure, and we have noted the 
importance of R&D;, and fire safety, and technology such as 
smart pigs. You will see that in the write-up or in the report 
language. These are simply instruments and packages that they 
run through the pipelines to detect defects and to give other 
information. It is a device that will detect the abnormalities 
inside the pipe and outside. And likewise, we have enhanced the 
security and surveillance provision to address the growing 
concern of outside threats to our nation's pipeline 
infrastructure. I think it is a good amendment.
    In the activities and capabilities section, we have changed 
the language some to ensure the agencies take into account 
research that is done in other agencies and to adjust their 
efforts accordingly.
    So finally, we have added three definitions for energy 
pipeline, next generation pipeline, and pipeline and various 
conforming languages changed to accommodate the definitions. 
You can see the definitions if you need to at the end of the 
bill there, simply enlarged. I yield back my time.
    Chairman Boehlert. Is there any further discussion? If not, 
the vote occurs on the amendment. All in favor say aye. 
Opposed, no. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to.
    [Amendment to H.R. 3929 follows:]
    Chairman Boehlert. Are there any further amendments? 
Hearing none, the question is on the bill H.R. 3929, the Energy 
Pipeline Research, Development, and Demonstration Act. All in 
favor will say aye. Opposed, no. In the opinion of the Chair, 
the ayes have it. I will now recognize Mr. Hall for a motion.
    Mr. Hall. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee favorably 
report H.R. 3929 as amended to the House with the 
recommendation that the bill as amended do pass. Furthermore, I 
move that the staff be instructed to prepare the legislative 
report and make necessary technical and conforming changes, and 
that the Chairman take all necessary steps to bring the bill 
before the House for consideration sooner rather than later.
    Chairman Boehlert. Any questions on the motion to report 
the bill favorably? Those in favor of the motion will signify 
by saying aye. Opposed, no. The ayes appear to have it, and the 
bill is favorably reported. I move that members have two 
subsequent calendar days in which to submit supplemental 
minority or additional views on the measure. Without objection 
so ordered. I move pursuant to Clause 1 of Rule 22 of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives that the Committee authorize 
the Chairman to offer such motions as may be necessary in the 
House to go to conference with the Senate on the bill H.R. 3929 
or a similar Senate bill. Without objection, so ordered.
    That concludes the Committee markup.
    [Whereupon, at 11:08 a.m., the Committee proceeded to other