Pipeline Safety: Collecting Data and Sharing Information on Federally Unregulated Gathering Pipelines Could Help Enhance Safety
Published: 2012-03-22T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Pipelines are a relatively safe mode of transportation for hazardous liquid and natural gas and are regulated by the Department of Transportations (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and state entities. Included in the nations pipeline network are an estimated 200,000 or more miles of onshore gathering pipelines, which transport products to processing facilities and larger pipelines. Many of these pipelines have not been subject to federal regulation based on their generally rural location and low operating pressures. While incidents involving gathering pipelines regulated by PHMSA have resulted in millions of dollars in property damage in recent years, comparable statistics for federally unregulated gathering pipelines are unknown. This report identifies (1) the safety risks that exist, if any, with onshore hazardous liquid and natural gas gathering pipelines that are not currently under PHMSA regulation and (2) the practices states use to help ensure the safety of these pipelines. GAO surveyed state pipeline safety agencies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia; interviewed officials at PHMSA, state pipeline safety agencies, pipeline companies, and industry associations; and analyzed data and regulations.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: While the safety risks of onshore gathering pipelines that are not regulated by PHMSA are generally considered to be lower than for other types of pipelines, PHMSA does not collect comprehensive data to identify the safety risks of unregulated gathering pipelines. In response to a GAO survey, state pipeline safety agencies cited construction quality, maintenance practices, unknown or uncertain locations, and limited or no information on pipeline integrity as among the highest risks for federally unregulated pipelines. Without data on these risk factors, pipeline safety officials are unable to assess and manage safety risks associated with these pipelines. Furthermore, changes in pipeline operational environments cited in response to GAOs survey and by industry officials could also increase safety risks for federally unregulated gathering pipelines. Specifically, land-use changes are resulting in development encroaching on existing pipelines and the increased extraction of oil and natural gas from shale deposits is resulting in the development of new gathering pipelines, some of which are larger in diameter and operate at higher pressure than older pipelines. PHMSA is considering collecting data on federally unregulated gathering pipelines, but the agencys plans are preliminary, and the extent to which PHMSA will collect data sufficient to evaluate the potential safety risks associated with these pipelines is uncertain.
A small number of state pipeline safety agencies GAO surveyed reported using at least one of five practices that were most frequently cited to help ensure the safety of federally unregulated pipelines. These practices include (1) damage prevention programs, (2) considering areas of highest risk to target resources, (3) safety inspections, (4) public outreach and communication, and (5) increased regulatory attention on operators with prior spills or leaks. However, the sharing of information among states on the safety practices used appears to be limited. Some state and PHMSA officials GAO interviewed had limited awareness of safety practices used by other states. Increased communication and information sharing about pipeline safety practices could boost the use of such practices for unregulated pipelines. However, information targeted at gathering pipelines on PHMSAs website, including relevant safety practices and state activities, is limited.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: DOT should (1) collect data on federally unregulated hazardous liquid and gas gathering pipelines and (2) establish an online clearinghouse or other resource for sharing information on pipeline safety practices. DOT provided technical corrections on a draft of this report.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Pipelines are a relatively safe mode of transportation for hazardous liquid  and natural gas. The nation’s network of more than 2.5 million miles of  pipeline is largely regulated by the Department of Transportation’s (DOT)  Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and  state entities. Part of this network consists of more than 200,000 miles  (estimated) of onshore “gathering” pipelines, which transport hazardous  liquid and natural gas products from wells to processing facilities and to  larger transmission pipelines. Many of these gathering pipelines,  however, have not been subject to PHMSA regulation because they are  generally located away from population centers and operate at low  pressures. In recent years, incidents involving gathering pipelines  regulated by PHMSA have resulted in millions of dollars in property  damage. Comparable statistics for federally unregulated gathering  pipelines are unknown because PHMSA does not collect such data.
You requested that we review pipeline safety issues related to onshore  gathering pipelines not regulated by PHMSA. To do so, we examined   (1) the safety risks that exist, if any, with onshore hazardous liquid and  natural gas gathering pipelines that are not currently under PHMSA  regulation and (2) the practices states use to help ensure the safety of  these federally unregulated onshore gathering pipelines.
To identify safety risks that may be associated with gathering pipelines,  we reviewed PHMSA safety regulations and analyzed data on pipelines  regulated by PHMSA to understand the types of pipeline data currently  collected, as well as to compare and analyze accident, injury, fatality, and  other trends. We determined that these data were complete, reasonable,  and sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. For both  objectives, we developed and administered a survey to 52 pipeline safety  agencies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia to collect  information on, among other things, onshore gathering pipelines, the  perceived pipeline safety risks associated with those pipelines, and the  safety practices used for those pipelines. We received a 100 percent  response rate for this survey. We also interviewed officials at PHMSA,  selected state pipeline safety agencies, pipeline companies, and industry  associations. We conducted site visits to Dallas-Fort Worth, Denver, and  Pittsburgh; we selected these locations based on geography, existing  pipeline infrastructure, and other factors.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2011 to March 2012  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Pipelines transport roughly two-thirds of domestic energy supplies  through approximately 2.5 million miles of pipelines throughout the United  States. These pipelines carry hazardous liquids and natural gas from  producing wells to end users (residences and businesses). Within this  nationwide system, there are three main types of pipelines.
Gathering pipelines. Gas gathering pipelines collect natural gas from  production areas, while hazardous liquid gathering pipelines collect oil  and other petroleum products. These pipelines then typically transport  the products to processing facilities, which in turn refine and send the  products to transmission pipelines. According to PHMSA officials,  traditionally, gathering pipelines range in diameter from about 2 to 12  inches and operate at pressures that range from about 5 to 800  pounds per square inch (psi). These pipelines tend to be located in  rural areas but can also be located in urban areas. PHMSA estimates  there are 200,000 miles of gas gathering pipelines and 30,000 to  40,000 miles of hazardous liquid gathering pipelines.
Transmission pipelines. Transmission pipelines carry hazardous liquid  or natural gas, sometimes over hundreds of miles, to communities  and large-volume users (e.g., factories). For natural gas transmission  pipelines, compression stations located periodically along the pipeline  maintain product pressure. Similarly, pumping stations along  hazardous liquid transmission pipelines maintain product flow.  Transmission pipelines tend to have the largest diameters and  pressures of any type of pipeline, generally ranging from 12 inches to  42 inches in diameter and operating at pressures ranging from 400 to  1440 psi. PHMSA has estimated there are more than 400,000 miles  of gas and hazardous liquid transmission pipelines.
Distribution pipelines. Gas distribution pipelines continue to transport  natural gas to residential, commercial, and industrial customers,  splitting off from transmission pipelines. These pipelines tend to be  smaller, sometimes less than 1 inch in diameter, and operate at lower  pressures—0.25 to 100 psi.  PHMSA has estimated there are roughly  2 million miles of distribution pipelines, most of which are intrastate  pipelines. There are no hazardous liquid distribution pipelines.
However, some distribution pipelines can be as large as 24 inches in diameter and  operate at higher pressures (i.e., over 350 psi).
Part 191 (Gas Reporting), Part 192 (Gas), Part 193 (Liquid Natural Gas), Part 194 (Liquid  Facility Response Plans), and Part 195 (Hazardous Liquid) of Title 49 of the Code of  Federal Regulations.
Most natural gas distribution pipelines would generally be considered  to be in high-consequence areas, as defined under the transmission  pipelines regulations, since they are typically located in highly  populated areas.
PHMSA regulates hazardous liquid and natural gas gathering pipelines— using uniform, minimum standards—based on their proximity to populated  and environmentally sensitive areas. For natural gas gathering pipelines,PHMSA uses class locations—the same classification system used for  natural gas transmission and distribution pipelines. (See table 1.) Under  this system, PHMSA generally regulates onshore natural gas gathering  pipelines in Class 2, 3, or 4 locations. For hazardous liquid gathering  pipelines, PHMSA regulates those pipelines in incorporated and  unincorporated cities, towns, and villages; pipeline segments that cross a  waterway currently used for commercial navigation; and certain rural  gathering pipelines within one-quarter mile of environmentally sensitive  areas. This includes high-consequence areas, as defined for the  hazardous liquid integrity management program. High-consequence  areas can also be in Class 1, 2, 3, or 4 locations, which can entail  different reporting requirements. For example, gathering pipeline  operators in high-consequence areas that are in Class 1 locations are not  required to report data on pipeline-related incidents, including fatality,  injury, and property damage information.
Under the current regulatory system, PHMSA does not regulate most  gathering pipelines in the United States based on their location. For  example, out of the more than 200,000 estimated miles of natural gas  gathering pipelines, PHMSA regulates roughly 20,000 miles. Similarly, of  the 30,000 to 40,000 estimated miles of hazardous liquid gathering  pipelines, PHMSA regulates about 4,000 miles. However, according to  PHMSA officials, the agency has the authority to collect data on all onshore  hazardous liquid and gas gathering pipelines, even though it generally  does not regulate gas gathering pipelines in Class 1 locations or hazardous  liquid gathering pipelines not located in high-consequence areas.
Generally, PHMSA retains full responsibility for inspecting and enforcing  regulations on interstate pipelines. However, states may be authorized to  conduct inspections for interstate pipelines, as well as inspections and  associated enforcement for intrastate pipelines. States can also  promulgate regulations for intrastate pipelines, including gathering  pipelines. PHMSA has arrangements with 48 states, the District of  Columbia, and Puerto Rico to assist with overseeing interstate, intrastate,  or both interstate and intrastate pipelines. These arrangements, in which  states act as “agents” for PHMSA, can cover hazardous liquid pipelines  only, gas pipelines only, or both (see fig. 2). State pipeline safety offices  are allowed to issue regulations supplementing or extending federal  regulations, but these state regulations must be at least as stringent as  the minimum federal regulations. If a state wants to issue regulations that  apply to pipelines that PHMSA does not regulate, such as unregulated  gathering pipelines, it must do so under its own (state) authority.
section_title: Limited Information on Safety Risks and Changing Operational Environments Are Leading PHMSA to Consider Collecting Data
subsections: section_title: Limited Information
paragraphs: While gathering pipelines generally pose lower safety risks than other  types of pipelines, PHMSA does not collect comprehensive data on safety  risks associated with gathering pipelines. In response to GAO’s survey,  state pipeline safety agencies cited construction quality, maintenance  practices, unknown or uncertain locations, and limited or no information  on current pipeline integrity as safety risks for federally unregulated  gathering pipelines. Operators of unregulated gathering pipelines are  not required by federal law to report information on such risk factors.  Consequently, federal and state pipeline safety officials do not know the  extent to which individual operators collect such information and use it to  monitor the safety of their pipelines. In our survey of 52 state agencies,  39 agencies—10 monitoring hazardous liquid and 29 monitoring natural  gas—responded that they had onshore gathering pipelines that PHMSA  does not regulate located in their state. (See app. II for a summary of our  survey results.) For these 39 agencies, four of the five top responses  cited the following risk factors for onshore unregulated gathering pipelines  as among the highest public safety risks.
Construction quality. Eighteen state agencies reported that the quality  of installation procedures and construction materials is a moderate or  high safety risk for unregulated gathering pipelines. The construction  phase of pipeline installation is critical to ensure the long-term integrity  of the pipeline because the installation methods and materials used in  pipeline construction affect the pipeline’s resistance to deterioration  over time. For example, one inspection requirement for regulated  pipelines is that they may not be installed unless they have been  visually inspected at the site of installation to ensure that they are not  damaged in a manner that could impair their strength or reduce their  serviceability. This requirement does not currently apply to  unregulated gathering pipelines.
Maintenance practices. Sixteen state agencies reported that the  extent to which pipeline operators maintain their pipelines is a  moderate or high safety risk for unregulated gathering pipelines.  According to agency officials, after a pipeline is installed and  operational, periodic maintenance—such as inspecting and testing  equipment—is important to prevent leaks and ruptures and could  extend the operating life of a pipeline. Furthermore, preventive  measures and repairs conducted on unregulated gathering pipelines,  as well as a record of such activities, could provide useful information  on the safety and history of a given gathering pipeline.
Location. Sixteen state agencies reported that the unknown or  uncertain location of unregulated gathering pipelines presents a  moderate or high safety risk. Although individual operators may know  the locations of unregulated pipelines, state and local safety agencies  may not know or may be uncertain about the locations and mileage of  unregulated pipeline infrastructure in their communities. This  information is particularly useful for “Call Before You Dig” programs  operated by states and localities. If unregulated gathering pipelines  are unmarked and program officials do not know the location of the  pipelines, businesses and citizens may damage a pipeline during  excavation, which could result in an incident—including fatalities,  injuries, or damage to property or the environment—as well as the  shutting down of the pipeline for repair.
Pipeline integrity. Sixteen state agencies reported that not knowing or  having limited knowledge about the integrity—the current condition— of unregulated gathering pipelines is a moderate or high safety risk.  Factors that affect the integrity of all pipelines—such as excavation  damage and corrosion—also affect gathering pipelines. For example,  excavation damage to a pipeline from nearby digging activities (see  fig. 3) is the leading cause of pipeline incidents and, as previously  noted, the uncertain location of unregulated gathering pipelines may  increase the potential for such damage. Furthermore, corrosion can  occur on the inside and outside of metal pipelines and is not easily  identified without appropriate pipeline assessments. From 2004  through 2010, corrosion was reported as the cause of about 60  percent—or nine incidents—of regulated gas gathering pipeline  incidents. Generally, pipeline experts we spoke with said limited  information on the integrity of unregulated gathering pipelines  prevents analysis to assess the internal and external condition of  these pipelines.
According to responses to our survey and interviews with industry officials  and representatives, land-use changes and the increased extraction of oil  and natural gas from shale deposits are two changes in the operating  environments that could increase the safety risks for unregulated  gathering pipelines.
Land-use changes. The fifth top response reported by state pipeline  safety agencies we surveyed was that increased urbanization has  caused rural areas to become more densely populated and, in some  cases, developments have encroached on existing pipeline rights-of- way. (See fig. 4.) Nineteen state agencies reported land-use changes  as a moderate or high risk for federally unregulated gathering  pipelines. Federal and state pipeline safety officials we spoke with are  concerned about the safety and proximity of people who work and live  near pipeline rights-of-way. For example, one state official stated that  although a new housing or business development can change a  location’s designation from Class 1 to a higher class that would then  fall under PHMSA’s jurisdiction, the operator may not be aware of the  development and therefore would not monitor and apply more  stringent regulations along that pipeline.
Increased extraction of oil and gas from shale deposits. According to  pipeline industry officials and representatives we interviewed, the  increased extraction of oil and natural gas from shale deposits poses  an increased risk to the public, partly because of the development of  new and larger gathering pipeline infrastructure. Deposits of oil and  natural gas have become increasingly important energy sources in the  United States over the past decade (see fig. 5). According to the U.S.  Energy Information Administration, shale gas accounted for 16  percent of the total domestic natural gas supply in 2009 and is  projected to increase to approximately 47 percent by 2035. This  extraction has led to drilling and production in regions of the country  that have previously seen little or no such activity. As a result of this  ongoing activity, as well as future growth projections, state and federal  safety officials we interviewed identified new gathering pipelines  related to shale development as a potential public safety risk. The risk  is primarily due to the characteristics and quantity of pipeline  infrastructure required to support this new production. Specifically,  some of these new gathering pipelines have larger diameters and  operate at higher pressures that are equivalent to traditional  transmission pipelines, but without the regulatory requirements. For  instance, an October 2010 report on pipeline issues and concerns in  Fort Worth stated that some gathering pipelines were as large as 24  inches in diameter with maximum allowable operating pressures  similar to those for transmission pipelines. Those gathering pipelines  were currently exempt from federal integrity management rules, which  require some form of pipeline integrity assessment at least once every  7 years, and clearly define how and when problems found during  these assessments are to be reported and repaired.
PHMSA officials stated that they are considering collecting data on  federally unregulated onshore gathering pipelines to better understand  and evaluate the safety risks posed by these pipelines. Although PHMSA  has the legal authority to collect data on unregulated gathering pipelines,  the agency is not required and has not yet exercised its authority to do so.  PHMSA officials reported that, instead of collecting such data, the agency  was focusing on the development of integrity management requirements  and improved data collection for higher-risk transmission and distribution  pipelines. However, PHMSA officials reported that there is value in having  data for unregulated pipelines similar to what is currently collected on  regulated pipelines, such as pipeline characteristics and reportable  information on incidents—including the location, cause, and  consequences of these incidents.
In addition, PHMSA issued Advanced Notices of Proposed Rulemakings  (ANPRM) for onshore hazardous liquid and gas pipelines in October 2010  and August 2011, respectively. For these proposed rulemakings,  PHMSA has sought comment on, among other things, whether to extend  regulation or other requirements to currently federally unregulated  gathering pipelines. Concerning potential data collection, the ANPRMs  sought comment on whether to require the submission of annual,  incident, and safety-related condition reports on federally unregulated  gathering pipelines, as well as on whether to establish a new, risk-based  regime of safety requirements for large-diameter, high-pressure gas  gathering pipelines, including those pipelines in rural locations. While  the ANPRMs did not seek comment on exactly what new data to collect,  PHMSA officials reported that the information would likely be similar to  what is currently collected on regulated gathering pipelines and that they  plan to issue final rules in late 2012. In the event that reporting  requirements are adopted, PHMSA officials stated that gathering pipeline  data would likely be collected on a state-by-state basis, which could later  be expanded to the national level. However, PHMSA’s plans for collecting  data are preliminary, and the extent to which PHMSA will collect data  sufficient to evaluate the potential safety risks associated with these  pipelines is uncertain.
Currently, PHMSA collects annual, incident, and safety-related condition  data on regulated pipelines. The specific types of safety-related data  collected for regulated pipelines include the operator, pipeline system  description, mileage by class location, diameter size, operating pressure,  incident location, number of injuries and fatalities, property damage, and  assessments conducted. These data help federal and state safety  officials and pipeline operators increase the safety of these pipelines by  better identifying and quantifying safety risks, as well as by implementing  mitigation strategies, and addressing potential regulatory needs. It is for  these same reasons that PHMSA, state, and some industry officials  reported that collecting similar data for unregulated gathering pipelines  would be beneficial. PHMSA officials also reported that in the event the  agency started collecting data on unregulated onshore gathering  pipelines, their current data reporting system could accommodate such a  collection and not require large changes for regulators or operators. On  the other hand, a few operators and industry groups we met with  expressed concerns over the burden that new data reporting would  represent. Before any potential data collection reporting requirements  could be enacted, PHMSA and the Office of Management and Budget  would review and evaluate the value of such information and associated  burdens on industry. PHMSA officials said that while many operators  should already have information on their gathering pipelines readily  available, it would still be important to communicate with operators and  take steps to minimize burdens in collecting new gathering pipeline data.
Some benefits of collecting such pipeline data can be seen through  additional analysis of currently collected data. For example, PHMSA’s  data on regulated pipelines indicate that more onshore reportable  incidents, as well as total property damage, occur on transmission and  distribution pipelines, than on regulated gathering pipelines (see figs. 6  and 7). Although the number of reportable incidents for regulated gas  gathering pipelines is lower than for other regulated pipelines, the value of  total property damage increased in the past few years. In 2010, these  reportable incidents accounted for, on average, about $1.8 million in  property damage per incident.
Another benefit of collecting annual, incident, and safety-related condition  pipeline data is an increased ability to assess and manage risks. We have  previously reported on the importance of assessing and managing risks,  including quantifying those risks using data. Data are instrumental in  quantifying risks and can reduce uncertainty in assumptions and policy  judgments (e.g., safety threats and the likelihood that they will be  realized). PHMSA officials reported that collecting data could help to  determine the safety risks associated with federally unregulated gathering  pipelines, such as tracking injuries, fatalities, and property damage for  new gathering pipelines associated with shale development, and whether  current safety regulations are appropriate. Related to whether current  regulations are appropriate, Congress recently mandated that DOT  review the sufficiency of existing federal and state laws and regulations to  ensure the safety of hazardous liquid and gas gathering pipelines. Two  industry associations reported that such data collection could help better  ensure that federal pipeline programs are appropriately targeted at  mitigating safety risks, cost-effective, and not unnecessarily broad in  scope. Quantitatively assessing risks could also allow for a ranking and  prioritizing of safety risks facing gathering pipelines in a manner that is  currently not possible.
Besides PHMSA, states may collect data on unregulated gathering  pipelines, but the scope and nature of this data collection can vary.  Although the federal government is responsible for setting minimum  pipeline safety standards, states can adopt additional or stricter safety  standards for intrastate pipeline facilities and transportation—including  standards for data collection. For example, Texas’s state regulation  further defined that the state’s safety jurisdiction for onshore gas  gathering pipelines begins after the first point of measurement—where  the product is first measured to determine the volume being extracted  from the well—and is based on population, which is stricter than the  federal standard. Our survey revealed that only 3 of the 39 state  agencies reported that they collect and analyze comprehensive pipeline  spill and release data on federally unregulated pipelines. Such  information can be used to help reduce future incidents. Additionally, the  National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives (NAPSR)  recently conducted a nationwide surveyrequirements match or exceed federal pipeline safety requirements. The  survey reported that neither states nor the District of Columbia collected  comprehensive data on federally unregulated gathering pipelines, as is  required for federally regulated pipelines.
section_title: States Could Benefit from Sharing Safety Practices
paragraphs: State pipeline safety agencies reported using five safety practices most  frequently to help ensure the safety of onshore hazardous liquid and gas  gathering pipelines not regulated by PHMSA, according to our survey of  state agencies (see fig. 8). Several of these practices are designed to  counter previously discussed safety risks; for example, implementing  damage prevention programs can lower the risks of excavation damage.Although these practices were cited most frequently, one-third or less of  the state pipeline safety agencies with unregulated gathering pipelines  use any one of these practices. For instance, 13 of the 39 state pipeline  safety agencies with unregulated gathering pipelines in their state  reported using the most frequently cited safety practice—damage  prevention programs. Additionally, some of the state agencies that  reported using safety practices also responded that, overall, they had  promulgated safety requirements for onshore gathering pipelines that  were more stringent than those provided by PHMSA.
Damage prevention programs. Thirteen state agenciesthey implement and enforce a damage prevention program as a  practice to help ensure pipeline safety. Damage prevention programs  can help mitigate risks and increase safety through a number of  activities. For example, damage prevention programs can help reduce  the risk of excavation damage by encouraging citizens and other  parties to collect information to help identify pipeline locations before  digging begins. Damage prevention programs can also include  marking the rights-of-way for pipelines—including gathering  pipelines—above ground to further reduce the likelihood of excavation  damage (see fig. 9). States have developed or participated in damage  prevention programs to help reduce instances of excavation damage,  including damage to gathering pipelines. For example, Colorado has  participated in the national One-Call program to reduce excavation  damage. One-Call programs enable citizens and organizations to call  an 811 number to notify utilities, pipeline operators, and others about  the location and nature of planned digging. Utility, pipeline, or other  organization members can then mark where underground pipelines  run before any digging begins. Colorado pipeline safety officials  reported that some calls related to the marking of regulated and  unregulated gathering pipelines. As to the effectiveness of One-Call  programs, the Common Ground Alliance has reported that, in 2010,  when an excavator notified a call center before digging, damage  occurred less than 1 percent of the time.
Considering areas of highest risk. Ten state agencies reported they  consider the areas of highest risk to effectively target resources as a  safety practice. This approach can help address risks, such as  corrosion and a lack of periodic maintenance, by directing oversight to  those pipelines that could have the most serious consequences in the  event of an incident. In addition, considering the areas of highest  risk could help address potential safety risks from new gathering  pipeline infrastructure associated with shale development. For  example, considering risk factors associated with larger pipelines,  operating pressures, and location could help determine the actual  risks posed by these new pipelines. Indeed, some of PHMSA’s more  recent pipeline safety regulations addressing integrity management  and high-consequence areas account for risk factors to help  determine which regulations might apply to a particular pipeline.  Industry officials reported that it is more effective to target higher-risk  areas than to allocate resources across all areas. Officials with the  Texas Oil and Gas Association added that the risk of a pipeline  incident in a heavily populated area warrants more attention than the  risk of a similar incident in a sparsely populated area. This practice  also acknowledges that gathering pipelines run through a wide variety  of environments with varying risk levels (see fig. 10). Some states are  overseeing pipelines based on identified safety risks. For example,  safety compliance and enforcement staff at the Texas Railroad  Commission reported that inspecting pipeline systems based on  identified risks allows the state to inspect some pipelines less  frequently, such as pipelines made from newer and safer materials,  have advanced monitoring technology, or are located away from  populations—like some rural gathering pipelines. Using these risk- based safety evaluations also enables Texas Railroad Commission  inspectors to concentrate on higher-risk pipeline systems.
Safety inspections. Nine state agencies reported they conduct  recurring, scheduled, or unscheduled safety inspections of hazardous  liquid and gas operators as another safety practice. NAPSR officials  reported that safety inspections can be regularly scheduled  inspections, during which inspectors check system components,  specialized inspections (i.e., integrity management) aimed at higher- risk areas, or random checks. These inspections can also help  address risks related to the installation and construction quality of a  pipeline by ensuring that the pipeline is structurally sound and shows  no evidence of questionable materials or other problems, such as  corrosion and excavation damage. PHMSA has recommended that  state pipeline safety agencies perform periodic surprise inspections  on new pipeline construction to determine whether operators are  complying with construction requirements. Inspectors with the Texas  Railroad Commission, in addition to sampling on-site pipeline facilities  in the field, also review pipeline operators’ records and documentation  on selected pipeline systems for compliance with federal and state  pipeline safety regulations. These risk-based safety evaluations have  included the construction of gathering pipelines related to shale  development and pipelines not regulated by PHMSA. Such  evaluations also help ensure that operators maintain an up-to-date  and consistent document records system for installation, operations,  and emergency response (see fig. 11).
Public outreach and communication. Seven state agencies reported  they engage in outreach or other communication with communities and  citizens to boost awareness and knowledge of pipeline safety practices  they use. The Common Ground Alliance has reported on the  importance of outreach, including the use of structured education  programs, targeted mailings, and paid advertising. These and other  outreach methods can also underscore the importance of other safety  practices, such as damage prevention and One-Call programs. These  outreach efforts can involve a number of methods and include  educating and engaging the public. In Colorado, Damage Prevention  Councils have hosted monthly meetings and participated in local  community events—such as educational seminars, parades, and trade  shows—to help educate citizens on pipeline safety. Another Colorado  entity active in damage prevention is the Colorado Pipeline Association,  which comprises pipeline operators dedicated to promoting pipeline  safety by providing information for excavators, state residents,  businesses, emergency responders, and public officials. In one  community, according to a PHMSA official, citizens viewed state safety  officials as an objective and neutral party that provided information and  perspectives on the planned construction of gathering pipelines. In  tandem with private operators, the state officials were able to answer  citizen questions and address concerns.
Enforcement. Six state agencies reported a safety practice of  establishing a system of escalated enforcement to enhance and  increase regulatory attention on operators that have experienced  incidents. A pipeline expert we interviewed said that promoting an  effective enforcement program was necessary to help ensure pipeline  safety. A system of escalated enforcement can enhance and increase  regulatory attention on pipeline operators with safety violations. One  state pipeline safety official reported that making such attention public  can bring additional pressure on and provide incentives for a company  to maintain and operate its infrastructure safely. One PHMSA official  reported that although many states do not have an enforcement  program as elaborate as PHMSA, states with stronger enforcement  programs have more of an impact on the operators to increase safety.  Pipeline operators may have procedures and established contacts  with local enforcement personnel in order to act appropriately to halt  dangerous excavation activities that may damage pipelines and  potentially cause an immediate threat to life or property. Regarding  federally unregulated gathering pipelines, one Colorado official  reported that because gathering pipeline companies operate pipelines  and conduct excavation work, they would be subject to any necessary  enforcement due to safety violations.
However, sharing of information among states on the safety practices they  use for unregulated gathering pipelines appears to be limited. Some state  and PHMSA officials we interviewed had limited awareness of what other  states were doing to help ensure the safety of gathering pipelines not  regulated by PHMSA. For example, pipeline safety officials we interviewed  had limited awareness of other state programs—sometimes even for an  adjacent state—even if those programs were intended to address common  risks, such as reducing excavation damage and corrosion. PHMSA officials  were likewise unable to report on the safety practices that many states use  or on states’ regulations that were more stringent than federal  requirements. PHMSA’s website holds a wealth of information on various  pipeline safety topics, including recent pipeline forums and industry  research, incident investigations, and other information. However,  information targeted at gathering pipelines, including relevant safety  practices and state activities, is limited. In addition, all related information  could be grouped to decrease time spent searching and scanning.  Currently, there is no central PHMSA web page or resource for gathering  pipelines, regulated or unregulated—possibly due, in part, to the lower  safety risks that regulated gathering pipelines have posed to people and  property when compared with other pipelines, like transmission pipelines.  PHMSA officials said that its website also focuses on pipelines that  PHMSA regulates but excludes most gathering pipelines. PHMSA has  considered the development of a website to help facilitate sharing  information among states. While this project is still in the planning stages  and not targeted at gathering pipelines, it could be a resource to share  program and safety practices among states and PHMSA.
Increased communication and information sharing about pipeline safety  practices could boost the use of those practices in states with unregulated  gathering pipelines. As previously discussed, even the safety practice that  our survey respondents reported using most frequently—implementing a  damage prevention program—was used by just 13 of the 39 responding  state pipeline safety agencies with unregulated gathering pipelines in their  state. The other four safety practices cited are reportedly used even less.  Improved information sharing among states and PHMSA could help  spread information on how these safety practices—which are also used  for regulated pipelines–-could be applied to unregulated gathering  pipelines, thereby benefiting other states with unregulated gathering  pipelines. We have previously reported on the value of organizations  reporting and sharing safety information as part of encouraging a wider  safety culture. Safety culture can include organizational awareness of  safety and open communication. The benefits of a strong safety culture  have widespread applicability, including in other transportation areas— such as aviation and transit. PHMSA could serve to facilitate feedback  and evaluate safety information related to unregulated gathering pipelines  in states. By collecting information on safety practices and other  information relevant to unregulated gathering pipelines, PHMSA could  increase the potential for identifying systemic issues, disseminating  lessons learned, and improving pipeline safety across the country.  PHMSA officials reported that, in the past, similar online and educational  efforts in other areas have resulted in increasing education and  information sharing among state pipeline safety officials.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: While the safety risks of federally unregulated, onshore hazardous liquid  and gas gathering pipelines are generally considered to be lower than  other types of pipelines, PHMSA is currently not able to determine the  performance and safety of these gathering pipelines because it does not  collect the necessary pipeline operator data. The agency is considering  options to collect such information, which could facilitate quantitatively  assessing the safety risks posed by unregulated gathering pipelines.  Furthermore, these data would be critical in helping PHMSA to evaluate  the sufficiency of safety regulations for gathering pipelines as required by  the congressional mandate or that increasing shale development across  the country might necessitate. Making data-driven, evidence-based  decisions about the risks of federally unregulated gathering pipelines is  especially important in a time of limited resources.
The absence of an information-sharing resource focused on federally  unregulated gathering pipelines means that both states and PHMSA  could miss opportunities to share lessons learned and successful  practices for helping to ensure pipeline safety. Sharing such lessons and  related safety reporting can help support a safety culture and increase  state officials’ awareness of possible safety practices or strategies that  they can use to enhance pipeline safety. Lessons learned can also help  states avoid the mistakes of others. Additionally, increased information  sharing through such a resource would help PHMSA become more aware  of state pipeline safety practices and initiatives—which in turn would  assist PHMSA in sharing and supporting these safety practices, as well  as in considering what state efforts may have applicability for federal  programs, regulation, and guidance.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To enhance the safety of unregulated onshore hazardous liquid and gas  gathering pipelines, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation  direct the PHMSA Administrator to take the following two actions:
Collect data from operators of federally unregulated onshore  hazardous liquid and gas gathering pipelines, subsequent to an  analysis of the benefits and industry burdens associated with such  data collection. Data collected should be comparable to what PHMSA  collects annually from operators of regulated gathering pipelines (e.g.,  fatalities, injuries, property damage, location, mileage, size, operating  pressure, maintenance history, and the causes of incidents and  consequences).
Establish an online clearinghouse or other resource for states to share  information on practices that can help ensure the safety of federally  unregulated onshore hazardous liquid and gas gathering pipelines.  This resource could include updates on related PHMSA and industry  initiatives, guidance, related PHMSA rulemakings, and other  information collected or shared by states.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided the Department of Transportation with a draft of this report  for review and comment.  The department provided technical corrections,  which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional  committees and the Secretary of Transportation. In addition, the report is  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of our review were to determine (1) the safety risks that  exist, if any, with onshore hazardous liquid and natural gas gathering  pipelines that are not currently under the Pipeline and Hazardous  Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) regulation and (2) the practices  states are using to help ensure the safety of unregulated onshore  gathering pipelines. To address our objectives, we reviewed PHMSA and  other federal agency regulations, as well as available safety data on  regulated pipelines. We also interviewed officials at PHMSA, state  pipeline safety agencies, pipeline companies and other industry  stakeholders, and related associations. We obtained data on pipelines  regulated by PHMSA to understand the types of pipeline data currently  collected, as well as to compare and analyze accident, injury, fatality, and  other trends. We reviewed the data and conducted follow-up work as  necessary to determine that the data were complete, reasonable, and  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We also conducted site  visits—selecting locations based on geography, pipeline infrastructure,  and other factors—to interview pipeline officials and representatives in  Denver, Pittsburgh, and Dallas-Fort Worth. We later identified an initial list  of safety risks and safety practices through information collection and  document review processes.
To determine what safety risks may be associated with federally  unregulated gathering pipelines—in addition to reviewing federal agency  regulations, regulated pipeline safety data, and conducting various  interviews—and because of the lack of historical and nationwide data, we  developed and administered a web-based survey to state pipeline safety  agencies in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Our survey was  intended to collect information otherwise not available from PHMSA,  states, industry, or other sources on safety risks associated with onshore,  federally unregulated hazardous liquid and gas gathering pipelines and  related safety practices to help address those risks and ensure safety.  We used the survey to identify which states had unregulated, onshore  gathering pipelines and what perceived pipeline safety risks were  associated with those pipelines. To identify safety practices states are  using, we reviewed industry documents and conducted interviews with  public and private experts and officials. Then, as part of our survey of  state pipeline safety agencies, we asked officials to identify the practices  they used to ensure the safety of onshore, federally unregulated  hazardous liquid and gas gathering pipelines. From our survey results, we  identified the most frequently cited safety practices, including additional  state programs, activities, and other practices.
To develop the survey questions, we conducted initial interviews with  state officials and other pipeline safety stakeholders to identify safety  issues regarding unregulated gathering pipelines. We also reviewed key  literature to ascertain pipeline safety practices and other issues. We  consulted with PHMSA officials and reviewed PHMSA documentation to  identify the proper terminology for use in the survey.
The survey was pretested with potential respondents from state pipeline  safety agencies, as well as with the Congressional Research Service and  National Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives. We did this to  ensure that (1) the questions were clear and unambiguous, (2) the terms  we used were precise, (3) the survey did not place an undue burden on  the agency officials completing it, and (4) the survey was independent  and unbiased. In addition, the survey was reviewed by an internal,  independent survey expert. We took steps in survey design, data  collection, and analysis to minimize nonsampling errors. For example, we  worked with PHMSA officials to identify the appropriate survey  respondents—state pipeline safety agencies. To minimize measurement  error that might occur from respondents interpreting our questions  differently from our intended purpose, we extensively pretested the  survey and followed up with nonresponding units and with units whose  responses violated certain validity checks. We identified only two cases  where the respondents had slightly varied responses from our intended  question, although the majority understood our questions as intended.  Finally, to eliminate data-processing errors, we independently verified the  computer program that generated the survey results. Our results are not  subject to sampling error because we administered our survey to all 50  state pipeline safety agencies and the District of Columbia.
The survey was conducted using self-administered electronic  questionnaires posted on the World Wide Web. We sent e-mail  notifications to 52 agencies responding to our survey. We also e-mailed  each potential respondent a unique password and username to ensure  that only members of the target population could participate in the survey.  To encourage respondents to complete the survey, we sent an e-mail  reminder to each nonrespondent about 2 weeks after our initial e-mail  message. The survey data were collected from July through September  2011. We received responses from all 50 states and the District of  Columbia, for an overall response rate of 100 percent. This “collective  perspective” obtained from each of the agencies helps to mitigate  individual respondent bias by aggregating information across the range of  different viewpoints. For purposes of characterizing the results of our  survey, we identified specific meanings for the words we used to quantify  the results, as follows: “a few” means between 1 percent and 24 percent  of respondents, “some” means between 25 percent and 44 percent of  respondents, “about half” means between 45 percent and 55 percent of  respondents, “a majority” means between 56 percent and 74 percent of  respondents, “most” means between 75 percent and 94 percent of  respondents, and “nearly all” means 95 percent or more of respondents.  This report contains the central results from the survey (see app. II).
We conducted this performance audit from February 2011 to March 2012  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Summary Results, GAO Pipeline Safety Regulations Survey
paragraphs: Appendix II: Summary Results, GAO Pipeline  Safety Regulations Survey General Pipeline Safety Regulation Survey Questions  YES RESPONSES  Does your state have any onshore gathering pipelines outside of high consequence areas that  PHMSA does not regulate?
Does your agency collect any data for onshore gathering pipelines that PHMSA does not  regulate?
Does your state have safety requirements for onshore gathering pipelines that are more  stringent than those provided by PHMSA?
Subpopulation Total  How great a safety risk, if at all, are the following factors for onshore hazardous liquid  and gas gathering pipelines in your state that PHMSA does not regulate?  MODERATE AND HIGH SAFETY RISK RESPONSES  A. Limited or no annual reporting data (similar to PHMSA’s) available on these pipelines (e.g.,  mileage, leaks)
B. Limited or no incident data available on these pipelines (e.g., spills, releases)  C. Limited or no information on the integrity of these pipelines  D. Unknown or uncertain locations of pipelines  E. Location of these pipelines in high consequence areas  F. Limited or no inspections conducted on these pipelines  G. Limited or no information on the pipe size  H. Limited or no information on operating pressure  I. Installation/construction quality  J. Periodic maintenance not conducted on these pipelines  K. Quality of product (sour or non-sour, corrosive, abrasive, etc.)
Does your agency use any of the following practices to  ensure onshore hazardous liquid and gas pipeline safety  in your state?
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, other key contributors to this  report were Sara Vermillion (Assistant Director), Matt Cail (Analyst-in- Charge), Aisha Cabrer, David Hooper, Stuart Kaufman, Josh Ormond,  Jerome Sandau, Jeremy Sebest, Rebecca Shea, Don Watson, and   Adam Yu.