A Call for Transparency in Pipeline Safety Enforcement
"No government is perfect. One of the chief virtues of a democracy, however, is that its defects are always visible and under democratic processes can be pointed out and corrected."
President Harry Truman, 1947
Pipeline safety enforcement could benefit from President Truman's philosophy. This article is about how Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) civil fine enforcement works and why OPS should make it more transparent.
How It Is
OPS enforcement procedures are complex. In simple terms, there are three stages:
- Investigating - reaching a preliminary conclusion whether a company violated the law;
- Proposing a fine - notifying the company of the allegation and what the fine could be;
- Hearing/Assessing/Collecting - giving the company an opportunity to present its views; deciding what the fine will be; collecting it.
The time from the first to the last step may take more than a decade. Meanwhile, there is no public input and OPS denies requests under the Freedom of Information Act. According to the Governmet Accountablity Office, from 1999 to 2003, OPS assessed less than 50 cents for every dollar of fines it proposed. And that doesn't even include the $5+ million dollars of fines that were proposed but never collected for the Bellingham and Carlsbad accidents that killed fifteen people. Without explanation, the pipeline operator goes behind a closed door with government officials and comes out paying much less money than originally owed. What goes on behind that door? No one knows.
The Need for Transparency
In this country, after the investigatory stage, law enforcement takes place in public for good reasons. Public scrutiny enhances credibility, accountability and fairness while preventing even the appearance of government corruption.
Credibility - seeing OPS expeditiously enforce its regulations would instill confidence that safe operation is a requirement rather than a guideline.
Accountability - if companies challenge fines because regulations are poorly crafted, the public could demand better rules.
Fairness - secret proceedings deny the public an opportunity to question fines and permit operators to make one-sided arguments without fear of rebuttal.
Prevention of corruption - while no one is suggesting that OPS is corrupt, any government agency that permits millions of dollars of fines to be whittled down to a few hundred thousand dollars behind closed doors is just asking for trouble from a suspicious public.
How It Should Be
OPS should create an internet accessible enforcement docket, like the existing DOT rulemaking docket, where the public could view enforcement as it progresses. The docket would include the OPS Notice of Probable Violation, the company's responses, transcripts of hearings and the final decision. OPS should also permit intervention by aggrieved parties.
Conclusion
When pipeline operators violate the law, they endanger the public. Therefore, the public has an interest in seeing operators held accountable. Open and transparent enforcement procedures would enhance public confidence and permit the public to work with OPS to make pipelines safer.
For more information, follow the link below:
GAO_doc2000.pdf
GAO_doc2001.pdf
GAO_doc2004.pdf
