OPS administers the national regulatory program to ensure the safe operation of nearly 2.2 million miles of natural gas and hazardous liquid pipelines in the United States. The agency develops, issues, and enforces pipeline safety regulations. These regulations contain minimum safety standards that the pipeline companies that transport natural gas or hazardous liquids must meet for the design, construction, inspection, testing, operation, and maintenance of their pipelines. In general, OPS retains full responsibility for inspecting pipelines and enforcing regulations on interstate pipelines, and certifies states to perform these functions for intrastate pipelines. In fiscal year 2000, OPS employed 97 people, 55 of whom were pipeline inspectors. Several federal statutes enacted since 1988 contain requirements designed to improve pipeline safety and enhance OPS’ ability to oversee the pipeline industry. In addition, the Safety Board makes recommendations designed to improve transportation safety to OPS and other federal agencies. These recommendations are based on the Safety Board’s investigations of transportation accidents, including significant pipeline accidents (such as those involving fatalities). Many of these recommendations address the same issues as the statutory requirements. OPS has made progress in implementing some of the 22 statutory requirements that it reported as open in our May 2000 report but has not fully implemented some significant, long-standing requirements. As of September 1, 2001, 6 of the 22 requirements have been closed as a result of OPS’ actions, 11 requirements are still open, and the remaining 5 have been closed because OPS now considers them to be superseded by or amendments to other requirements or because the agency does not believe it is required to take further action. The agency has fully implemented 6 of the 22 statutory requirements that it classified as open in May 2000. (See table 1.) Three of these six requirements were implemented in the last 16 months; OPS issued a final rule to define underwater abandoned pipeline facilities that present a hazard to navigation and specify how operators shall report these facilities, issued a report on its Risk Management Demonstration Program, and conducted activities to address population encroachment near pipelines. OPS had completed action on the other three requirements prior to May 2000, but did not report these actions to us at that time. (Appendix I provides the status of OPS’ actions to implement all 22 requirements as of September 1, 2001.) As of September 1, 2001, 11 requirements—including several from 1992 or earlier that could significantly improve pipeline safety—remain uncompleted. While OPS has made some progress on these requirements over the last year, the agency estimates that it will take from several months to more than a year to complete actions on them. For example, OPS is issuing a series of rules requiring pipeline operators to develop an integrity management program to assess and improve, where necessary, the safety of pipeline segments in areas where the consequences of a pipeline failure could be significant (called “high consequence areas.”) This series represents a broad-based, comprehensive effort designed to improve pipeline safety, as well as fulfill several specific statutory requirements such as requirements to inspect pipelines periodically and install valves to shut off the flow of product in the pipeline if a failure occurs. In December 2000, OPS issued a final integrity management rule for hazardous liquid pipelines that are at least 500 miles long. OPS still needs to issue similar integrity management rules for hazardous liquid pipelines that are less than 500 miles long, expected in late fall 2001, and for natural gas transmission pipelines. The agency expects to issue a proposed rule for transmission pipelines by the end of 2001 and a final rule in fall 2002. To facilitate the natural gas transmission rule, OPS officials have been meeting with representatives of the pipeline industry, research institutions, state pipeline safety agencies, and public interest groups to understand how integrity management principles can best be applied to improve the safety of gas pipelines. OPS also requested information and clarification in June 2001 and plans to hold a public meeting with its Natural Gas Technical Advisory Committee on this subject. According to OPS officials, they are close to reaching consensus with the pipeline industry and state agencies on safety standards for natural gas transmission pipelines. In addition, in response to a 1988 requirement to establish standards to complete and maintain a pipeline inventory, OPS is establishing multiple methods of collecting this information, such as annual reports, the integrity management process, and a national pipeline mapping system.According to OPS officials, they are collecting the necessary information for hazardous liquid and gas transmission pipelines, but still need to establish methods to collect additional information for gas distribution pipelines. OPS does not plan to complete forms that will allow it to collect such information until spring 2002—more than 13 years after the original requirement. Finally, in response to a 1992 requirement to define “gathering line” and “regulated gathering line,” OPS is still conducting studies to identify which lines should be regulated. OPS does not plan to issue a final rule before mid-2002. OPS officials estimate that it will take a year or more to implement 10 of the 11 open requirements. OPS does not plan to take action on the remaining open requirement to submit a report on underwater abandoned pipeline facilities, including a survey of where such facilities are located and an analysis of any safety hazards associated with them. According to OPS officials, the agency did not complete the report because there were insufficient data available, and it would be expensive to develop the needed data. OPS officials said they have analyzed to the extent possible all available data, and they do not plan to proceed further. We did not determine whether sufficient data exist or the cost to develop data to complete the report. OPS has closed the remaining five requirements that it reported as open in May 2000 because it now considers them to be superseded by or amendments to other requirements or because OPS believes it is no longer required to take action. Although OPS did not fulfill these requirements, we agree with OPS’ rationale for considering them closed. OPS closed one requirement because it was replaced by a later requirement. A 1988 statute required OPS to establish standards requiring that new and replacement pipelines accommodate the passage of “smart pigs”—mechanical devices that can travel through the pipeline to record flaws in the pipeline, such as dents or corrosion. Although OPS did not meet this requirement, the agency considers it closed because it was superseded by a similar requirement in a 1996 statute, which has not been completed. OPS closed three requirements from a 1996 statute that amended requirements from a 1992 statute that have not been completed: (1) defining “gathering lines” and “regulated gathering lines,” (2) requiring the periodic inspection of pipelines in high-density and environmentally sensitive areas, and (3) establishing criteria to identify all pipeline facilities located in areas that are densely populated and/or environmentally sensitive. In general, the amending provisions gave OPS more flexibility in fulfilling the requirements by adding language such as “where appropriate” or “if needed.” Although OPS considered these actions as open in our May 2000 report, OPS now believes that since these three provisions do not impose additional requirements they should not continue to be counted separately. OPS closed one requirement because it is no longer required to take action. A 1996 statute required OPS to issue biennial reports to the Congress on how the agency carried out its pipeline safety responsibilities for the preceding two calendar years. OPS issued the first report in August 1997 but did not issue a report in 1999. This reporting requirement was eliminated as of May 15, 2000, under the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995, as amended. The Safety Board is encouraged by OPS’ recent efforts to improve its responsiveness, but it remains concerned about the amount of time OPS has been taking to implement recommendations. The Director of the Safety Board’s Office of Pipeline Investigations views OPS’ responsiveness as generally improving because OPS has recently initiated several activities to respond to recommendations and made efforts to communicate better with the Safety Board. To improve communications with the Safety Board, OPS has changed how it informs the Safety Board of progress made on recommendations by corresponding with the Safety Board as progress occurs on individual recommendations, rather than providing periodic updates that may cover a number of recommendations. While the Safety Board is encouraged by OPS’ recent efforts, it is reserving final judgment on OPS’ progress until the agency demonstrates that it can follow through with actions to fully implement the recommendations. OPS continues to have the lowest rate of any transportation agency for implementing recommendations from the Safety Board; and, in May 2000 we reported that the Safety Board was concerned that OPS had not followed through on promises to implement recommendations. According to the Director of the Safety Board’s Office of Pipeline Investigations, the Safety Board continues to be concerned about the amount of time OPS is taking to follow through with the recommendations. For example, the Safety Board initially recommended in 1987 that OPS require pipeline operators to periodically inspect pipelines. OPS is responding to this recommendation through its series of rules on integrity management that is expected to be completed in 2002—15 years after the Safety Board made the initial recommendation. According to the Safety Board’s records, OPS has completed action on only 1 of the 39 Safety Board recommendations that were open as of May 2000. Since then, the Safety Board has made 6 additional recommendations, resulting in 44 open recommendations on pipeline safety as of September 1, 2001. However, OPS officials believe that the agency’s progress is much greater than the Safety Board’s records indicate. The majority of the recommendations are related to damage prevention (damage from outside forces is the leading cause of pipeline accidents) and integrity management; OPS is in the process of implementing several broad-based, complementary efforts in these areas. According to OPS officials, the agency will have fulfilled 19 of the open recommendations by the end of 2001 and expects to complete action on 16 additional recommendations by the end of 2002. OPS has made some progress in implementing statutory requirements over the past 16 months and expects to implement most of the remaining requirements in the next year or so. OPS also believes that it will have completed action on most of the 44 open Safety Board recommendations over this same time period. Ultimately, however, it is the Safety Board’s decision on whether OPS’ actions fulfill the recommendations. While this progress represents an improvement over OPS’ previous performance, the agency has not fully implemented some important requirements and recommendations to improve pipeline safety that were imposed more than 10 years ago. The next 15 months are important to OPS because, among other actions, the agency intends to complete its series of integrity management rules within this time frame. These rules are expected to improve the safety of pipelines and allow OPS to fulfill a large portion of the outstanding statutory requirements and Safety Board recommendations. We are concerned that OPS does not plan to take action in response to the 1992 statutory requirement to report to the Congress on underwater abandoned pipeline facilities. While we did not assess OPS’ claims that it is not feasible to complete the report due to insufficient data and funding, OPS has made no response to this requirement, including advising the Congress that it is not possible to complete the study. If the department believes that it cannot complete a report to the Congress on underwater abandoned pipeline facilities, we recommend that the Secretary of Transportation direct OPS to advise the Congress of the reasons why it is unable to complete this study and, if appropriate, ask the Congress to relieve it of this responsibility. We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Transportation for its review and comment. We met with officials from the department, including OPS’ Associate Administrator, to obtain their comments. The officials generally agreed with the draft report and its recommendation. The officials stated that OPS is taking a long-term, strategic approach to address safety goals by improving pipeline integrity and preventing damage to pipelines. According to the officials, this approach is more beneficial than responding directly to individual requirements and recommendations as discrete actions. For example, OPS’ integrity management rules will require pipeline operators to comprehensively evaluate and respond to the entire range of risks to pipelines; the rules will include, but are not limited to, safety practices that have been required by the Congress or recommended by the Safety Board, such as internal inspections and safety valves. The officials stated that OPS has undertaken several broad-based, complementary efforts, particularly focused on pipeline integrity and damage prevention that, when completed, are expected to improve pipeline safety and fulfill many specific statutory requirements and Safety Board recommendations. They said that such a process requires OPS—working cooperatively with state and local officials and the pipeline industry—to thoroughly explore the safety risks faced by different types of pipelines, devise solutions that work for each unique pipeline, and carefully assess the costs and expected benefits of various methods of mitigating risks. The officials expect that, within a year, the results of these efforts will become apparent to the Congress and the public. In response to OPS’ comments, we provided more detailed information on specific actions OPS has taken to improve pipeline safety, where appropriate. To determine OPS’ progress in responding to statutory requirements, we asked OPS officials to identify actions the agency has taken to respond to requirements. We then collected and reviewed documentation on these actions, such as published rules and reports. To determine OPS’ progress in responding to recommendations from the Safety Board, we collected and analyzed information from the Safety Board on the status of pipeline safety recommendations. We also interviewed the Safety Board’s Director of the Office of Railroad, Pipeline, and Hazardous Materials Investigations to discuss OPS’ progress in responding to the Safety Board’s recommendations. Consistent with the approach used for our May 2000 report, we relied on OPS and the Safety Board to identify which actions were open and did not attempt to determine whether these open actions were, in actuality, completed. In addition, we did not assess the adequacy of OPS’ responses to statutory requirements or the Safety Board’s recommendations. We performed our work from July through September 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 7 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to congressional committees and subcommittees with responsibilities for transportation safety issues, the Secretary of Transportation, the Administrator of the Research and Special Programs Administration, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the Acting Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board. We will make copies available to others upon request and on our home page at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or guerrerop@gao.gov. Key contributors to this report were Helen Desaulniers, Judy Guilliams-Tapia, James Ratzenberger, and Sara Vermillion. Appendix I: OPS’ Actions on Pipeline Safety Statutory Requirements Reported as Open in May 2000 (As of September 1, 2001) Citations included in table 5 are to the United States Code and to the Accountable Pipeline Safety and Partnership Act of 1996.

Summary: In a May 2000 report on the performance of the Department of Transportation's Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS), GAO found that the number of pipeline accidents rose four percent annually from 1989 to 1998--from 190 in 1989 to 280 in 1998. GAO also found that OPS did not implement 22 statutory requirements and 39 recommendations made by the National Transportation Safety Board. Since GAO's May report, OPS has fully implemented six of the 22 statutory requirements. However, 11 other requirements--including some that are significant and long-standing--have not been fully implemented. The agency does not plan to report on abandoned underwater pipeline facilities--a remaining open requirement--because it believes that insufficient data exists to conduct the study. The Safety Board is encouraged by OPS' recent efforts to improve its responsiveness, but the Board remains concerned about the amount of time OPS has taken to implement recommendations. OPS has the lowest rate of any transportation agency in implementing the Board's recommendations.