Title: Pipelines and Public Safety: Effective Measures for Limiting Encroachment
1 U. S. Department of Transportation
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration
www.dot.gov
2Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration
- Restoring Trust In Pipeline Safety Conference
- November 2006
- Kimbra Davis
- Community Assistance/Technical Services Program
Manager
3Distribution Integrity Management Program (DIMP)
- Excavation Damage Prevention Team
- Included stakeholders from
- PHMSA
- Distribution utilities
- State pipeline safety representatives
- Contractors
- Common Ground Alliance
4DIMP 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
5DIMP 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
6DIMP 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
7Findings
- 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.
8Findings
- 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
9Virginia(Effective Enforcement Program)
Gas Distribution Excavation Damages per 1000
Tickets
10Minnesota(Effective Enforcement Program)
Gas Distribution Excavation Damages per 1000
Tickets
11Comprehensive vs. Limited
12Elements 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
13Elements 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
14Legislation
- Three Pipeline Safety Reauthorization Proposals
- H.R. 5782 as amended by TI
- H.R. 5782 as amended by EC
- S. 3961
15Common 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