Pipelines and Public Safety: Effective Measures for Limiting Encroachment

1

U. S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration
www.dot.gov
2
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration

• Restoring Trust In Pipeline Safety Conference
• November 2006
• Kimbra Davis
• Community Assistance/Technical Services Program
  Manager

3
Distribution Integrity Management Program (DIMP)

• Excavation Damage Prevention Team
• Included stakeholders from
• PHMSA
• Distribution utilities
• State pipeline safety representatives
• Contractors
• Common Ground Alliance

4
DIMP Excavation Damage Prevention Task Group Focus

• What current actions, approaches or practices
  exist that can be applied broadly to reduce
  excavation damage
• Emphasis on comparing damage prevention in states
  with comprehensive damage prevention programs and
  effective enforcement

5
DIMP Excavation Damage Prevention Task Group
Approach

• Reviewed/analyzed data from
• Available state-level 3rd party and other
  excavation damage to distribution pipe
• Damage date for states with vs. without effective
  damage prevention programs
• One-call ticket volumes
• DOT incidents

6
DIMP Excavation Damage Prevention Task Group
Approach

• Also looked at
• Damage prevention processes
• CGA Best Practices
• Incentives to reduce damage
• Effective enforcement
• Public education, including 811
• Damage prevention performance metrics
• Cost/benefit analysis

7
Findings

• Total excavation damage numbers are declining but
  excavation damage still presents the greatest
  threat to distribution pipeline safety.
• Excavation damage prevention poses the greatest
  opportunity for safety improvements.
• Distribution pipeline safety and excavation
  damage prevention are intrinsically linked.
• Excavation damage prevention must be addressed to
  improve pipeline safety.

8
Findings

• States with comprehensive damage prevention
  programs that include effective enforcement have
  a substantially lower risk of excavation damage
  to pipeline facilities and related consequences.
• Federal legislation is needed to help develop and
  implement comprehensive damage prevention
  programs at the state level
• Requires a partnership of all stakeholders

9
Virginia(Effective Enforcement Program)
Gas Distribution Excavation Damages per 1000
Tickets
10
Minnesota(Effective Enforcement Program)
Gas Distribution Excavation Damages per 1000
Tickets
11
Comprehensive vs. Limited
12
Elements of Effective Excavation Damage Prevention

• Enhanced communications between operators and
  excavators
• Fostering support partnership of all
  stakeholders
• Operators use of performance measures
• Partnership in employee training

13
Elements of Effective Excavation Damage Prevention

• Partnership in public education
• Dispute resolution process
• Fair and consistent enforcement of the law
• Use of technology to improve process
• Analysis of data to continually evaluate/improve
  program effectiveness

14
Legislation

• Three Pipeline Safety Reauthorization Proposals
• H.R. 5782 as amended by TI
• H.R. 5782 as amended by EC
• S. 3961

15
Common Elements

• Focus on excavation damage prevention
• Increased enforcement/penalties for those that do
  not use one-call systems,disregard location
  markings or fail to take responsible steps to
  prevent excavation damage.
• State pipeline safety grants increased from 50
  to 80, contingent on the effectiveness of the
  states damage prevention program
• Continued funding for CGA
• Continued funding for One-Call Grants

16

U. S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration
www.dot.gov