I got snowed/iced in today (IN TEXAS??) so I had a chance to
go back and watch the video of last week’s oversight hearing conducted by the Railroads,
Pipelines, and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee of the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee. As I
predicted the major focus of the meeting was on issues related to the rail
transportation of crude oil and PTC implementation.
Administrative Issue
Before I get down to looking at the actual hearing I have a
beef with the staff of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. The
hearing got off to a late start (not unusual, the Members do have responsibilities
on the floor that the Chair has little control over), but the video started at the
scheduled start time and we get to see the audience slowly file in and mill
around for 41 minutes. This, and the 30 minute absence of the Subcommittee
Members for floor votes, really should not be part of the video record. The
video should start with the gaveling of the hearing to order and then stop when
it is adjourned (even temporarily). To do otherwise is a waste of resources and
makes it difficult for viewers to follow the hearing.
Typical Oversight
Hearing
In many ways this could have been an oversight hearing about
anything. The Subcommittee members and the witnesses all came to the table with
their own agendas clearly in hand. We had a number of instances (Starting with
the Chairman Denham’s (R,CA) castigation of Administrator Szabo about backing
out of agreements made with the Chair) where congress critters and bureaucrats
talked past each other in the question answer process.
There was only one instance where a witness (Administrator
Quarterman) was called on failing to answer the specific question asked. That
was when she was asked when was the absolute soonest that the current rail
safety ANPRN could become a final rule. She kept trying to explain the rule
making process, but Rep. DeFazio (D,OR)
just wanted an estimated date not an explanation. It was probably an unanswerable
question, but Quarterman’s answer should have reflected that.
Issues
There was a brief discussion about the latest DOT
emergency order that had been issued the evening before this hearing. Ms.
Quarterman was asked to clarify the phrase “conducted with sufficient frequency
and quality” that was used to describe the requirement for testing crude oil
being prepared for shipment. She replied that the phrase had been carefully
written to be vague to allow shippers to determine how often their products
should be tested based upon their operation; stable crude sources should be
tested less often than crude from multiple or changing sources.
There were lots of questions about DOT 111 railcar phase out
and new rail car designs, but there were no definitive answers given. Ms.
Quarterman made a very important point, however, about railcar design when she
reminded everyone that they were not, would not be, designed to withstand an
impact at ’40, 50 or 60 miles per hour’.
Mr. Hamberger, from the Association of American Railroads
(AAR) apparently surprised many on the Subcommittee when he described the
delays in PTC implementation that are being imposed on the railroads by the
FTC. Their surprise is more than a little surprising itself because last summer
the Chair of the full Committee wrote
a letter to the FCC asking for this problem to be resolved. The Senate
hearing this week will include an FCC representative to answer questions on
this issue.
The question of emergency response to crude derailments and
fires like those seen in Quebec and North Dakota came up. Both Szabo and
Hamberger touted the training being given at the
TTCI facility outside of Pueblo, CO. Hamberger mentioned a couple of times
his organization’s support for sending first responders to crude oil response courses
here and TRANSCAER type training that
would be given at various places around the country. Quarterman announced that some
HMEP
grants would be targeted at communities preparing for potential responses
to crude oil spill.
Senate Hearing
As I mentioned
this weekend, the Senate will be holding a similar meeting this Thursday.
It will be interesting to see if there is any new information that comes out of
that hearing. Given that the same organizations will be represented (the BLET union
representative will be replaced by someone from the FCC), the only real
difference will be the questions asked. The new Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee,
Sen. Blumenthal (D,CT) did make an appearance at last week’s hearing; basically
to introduce himself to his colleagues across the Hill.
No comments:
Post a Comment