Damage Prevention PHMSA s Perspective David Spangler CATS Coordinator Office of Pipeline Safety (202) 366-5064 David.spangler@dot.gov
Presentation Overview PHMSA s perspective on damage prevention Variability in state damage prevention programs PHMSA's Damage Prevention Assistance Program (DPAP) PHMSA s role in damage prevention and the nine elements of an effective damage prevention program Damage Prevention Initiatives State Damage Prevention Grants Public Awareness PHMSA s 3 rd party excavator enforcement rulemaking Pipelines and Informed Planning Alliance (PIPA)
PHMSA Pipeline Safety Mission The Office of Pipeline Safety is the Federal safety authority for ensuring the safe, reliable, and environmentally sound operation of the Nation's pipeline transportation system. -3-
CATS
CATS Community Assistance and Technical Services Program
CATS Mission The mission of the OPS Community Assistance & Technical Services (CATS) team is an ambitious one: To advance public safety, environmental protection and pipeline reliability by facilitating clear communications among all pipeline stakeholders, including the public, the operators and government officials. -6-
http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/ h / -7-
Damage Prevention An Introduction
Damage Prevention PHMSA s Perspective PHMSA s focus is pipelines, but Damage prevention for pipelines is damage prevention for all utilities damage prevention takes place on our common ground All stakeholders must be involved The elements of a good damage prevention program are spelled out in the PIPES Act of 2006 The 9 Elements Comprehensive state damage prevention programs, including effective enforcement lowers the risks
Why Does PHMSA Care? When a pipeline is damaged during excavation, people are almost always nearby Reducing excavation damage to pipelines furthers PHMSA s mission of ensuring the safe, reliable, and environmentally sound operation of the Nation s pipeline transportation system
Why Does PHMSA Care? Excavation damage is the leading cause of serious pipeline incidents. (causing injury or fatality) In 2007, excavation damages caused 20% of pipeline incidents id These incidents resulted in 4 fatalities, 10 injuries, and $3.5 M in damages* Excavation ation damage impacts all other underground utilities, causing service outages, affecting lives, and costing untold millions of dollars * Source: PHMSA Significant Incidents Files April 14, 2008
Why Does PHMSA Care? Over two million miles of pipelines pp in the U.S. (enough to circle the earth 83 times) 170,000 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines 295,220220 miles of gas transmission pipelines 1,900,000 miles of natural gas distribution pipelines 109 LNG plants connected to our natural gas transmission and distribution systems Propane distribution pipelines These pipelines are operated by more than 3,000 companies, large and small Natural gas provides 24% of U S total energy Natural gas provides 24% of U.S. total energy consumption; petroleum provides another 39%
Data Trends
Data Trends
Characterizing State Damage Prevention Programs
Variability in State Damage Prevention Programs Damage prevention is a shared responsibility, but damage prevention is largely executed at state and local levels There is considerable variability between the provisions of state damage prevention laws
OCSI One-Call Laws Summary * Source:2009-2010 OCSI Resource Guide (p. 19)
All States Have a Damage Prevention Law Source: One-Call Systems International Committee of the Common Ground Alliance
Statewide Coverage? Source: One-Call Systems International Committee of the Common Ground Alliance
Mandatory Membership? Source: One-Call Systems International Committee of the Common Ground Alliance
Civil Penalty Provision? Source: One-Call Systems International Committee of the Common Ground Alliance
Tolerance Zones Source: One-Call Systems International Committee of the Common Ground Alliance
Hand Dig Clause? Source: One-Call Systems International Committee of the Common Ground Alliance
Mandatory Premark? Source: One-Call Systems International Committee of the Common Ground Alliance
Emergency Clause? Source: One-Call Systems International Committee of the Common Ground Alliance
Positive Response Required? Source: One-Call Systems International Committee of the Common Ground Alliance
Excavator Permit Issued? Source: One-Call Systems International Committee of the Common Ground Alliance
Damage Reporting? Source: One-Call Systems International Committee of the Common Ground Alliance
DOT Exemption? Source: One-Call Systems International Committee of the Common Ground Alliance
Depth Exemption? Source: One-Call Systems International Committee of the Common Ground Alliance
Homeowner Exemption? Source: One-Call Systems International Committee of the Common Ground Alliance
Railroad Exemption? Source: One-Call Systems International Committee of the Common Ground Alliance
Agricultural Exemption? Source: One-Call Systems International Committee of the Common Ground Alliance
Characterizing State Damage Prevention Programs Maps help to demonstrate the variability that exists in state damage prevention laws PHMSA promotes implementation of the nine elements of effective damage prevention programs outlined in the Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement and Safety (PIPES) Act of 2006 States should: review their programs compare performance against the nine elements take appropriate action One size DOES NOT fit all
PHMSA Damage Prevention Assistance Program (DPAP)
Damage Prevention Transparency PHMSA s goal is to strengthen state damage prevention programs PHMSA needs clear documentation o of state programs to explain funding decisions and to show progress over time Characterizing state damage prevention programs compared to the nine elements, NOT compared to each other UNDER DEVELOPMENT: Utilizing CGA best practices, recommendations from NAPSR, some of the DIMP Phase I report, and PHMSA staff input Documenting strengths and weakness (aspects of the programs that work well and areas that need improvement relative to the nine elements)
Nine Elements of Effective Damage Prevention Programs 1. Effective communication between operators and excavators from excavation notification to completion of excavation 2. Fostering support and partnership of all stakeholders 3. Operators use of performance measures for locators 4. Partnership in employee training 5. Partnership in public education 6. A dispute resolution process that defines the enforcement agency as a partner and facilitator 7. Fair and consistent enforcement of the law 8. Use of technology to improve the locating process 9. Data analysis to continually improve program effectiveness
Nine Elements Guidance DIMP Phase I Report in 2005 PIPES Act of 2006 AGA, AGC, AOPL, INGAA, and NUCA - Excavation Damage Prevention Initiative (EDPI) and produced a draft paper, p Guide to the 9 Elements, in 2007. NAPSR - Suggested Criteria For Meeting the 9 Elements Of An Effective Damage Prevention Program (July 31, 2007) PHMSA - Damage Prevention Assistance Program (DPAP) Guide (September 2008) http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/publications/dpap-guide-firstedition-20080911.pdf
PHMSA Damage Prevention Initiatives Support one-call centers In every state Call before you dig Dial 811 Automatic ti routing to your one-call Support Common Ground Alliance All underground utilities 15 stakeholder groups Focus on best practices, education, research & development, data collection, one-call centers, and regional partnerships Participate in Regional CGA
PHMSA Damage Prevention Initiatives PHMSA Community Assistance and Technical Services (CATS) program Facilitate clear communications among all pipeline stakeholders, including the public, operators, and government officials One-call technology pilot project Using GPS in Virginia to enhance one-call communications Pipeline operator public awareness programs Our regulations require pipeline operators provide pipeline safety awareness messages to several stakeholder audiences
PHMSA Damage Prevention Initiatives Research and Development program $3.7M to date from PHMSA and industry on strengthening standards, technology developments, and developing knowledge documents Pipelines and Informed Planning Alliance (PIPA) Developing guidance for land development in the vicinity of transmission pipelines
PHMSA Damage Prevention Initiatives Grants to States Base grants One-call grants State Damage Prevention grants Implementing or enhancing the nine elements in state damage prevention programs
State Damage Prevention Grants Eligibility: Any State authority (including a municipality with respect to intrastate gas pipeline transportation) that is or will be responsible for preventing damage to underground pipeline facilities as long as the State participates in the oversight of pipeline transportation pursuant to an annual 49 U.S.C. 60105 certification or 49 U.S.C. 60106 agreement in effect with PHMSA Written designation by the Governor Funding: $1.5M annual budget, $100K maximum award Calendar year cycle (award by January, complete by December of same year) Competitive program
Review Committee (11 Members) Two representatives of NAPSR Two representatives of excavators; one from AGC and one from NUCA Two representatives of State one call centers One representative of AGA One representative of INGAA One representative of AOPL One PHMSA CATS Manager One representative of PHMSA State Programs
CY 2008 SDP Grant Recipients $99,440 $31,740 $100,000000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $57,750 $73,667 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $64,900 $100,000 $100,000 15 awards totaling $1,327,497
CY 2009 SDP Grant Recipients $100,000000 $82,044 $100,000 $100,000000 $84,120 $39,000 $99,462 $100,000000 $84,100 $87,870 $91,800 $78,000 12 awards totaling $1,058,086
Calendar Year 2010 SDP Grants Third year of grant program Evaluations based on new set of criteria; some similar to 2008/2009, some different One round of solicitation and evaluation Solicitation i i for applications i to be published July 2009 Awards final by December 2009 Period of performance 1/1/2010 12/31/2010
Pipeline Safety Information Grants to Communities a.k.a. Technical Assistance Grants (TAGs) Authorized by PIPES Act (49 U.S.C. 60130) $1M budgeted d for 2009; $50,000 000 maximum award to a community or pipeline safety non-profit First three grants must be demonstration grants; $25,000 maximum award each Goal is to fund exploration of engineering and other scientific analysis of pipeline safety issues, including the promotion of public participation in official proceedings Awardees must make findings available to relevant operators and foster open communication between interested parties
Additional i PHMSA Damage Prevention Assistance Other forms of assistance could include, for example: Host and facilitate neutral meetings Work with national trade associations and engage state level representatives Provide letters of support for improving state programs Provide guidance Conduct a program gap analysis Contact stakeholders and coordinate support Participate in state level conferences and meetings Utilize HQ and Community Assistance & Technical Services (CATS) resources for presentations
Public Awareness API - RP 1162
PHMSA s Damage Prevention Enforcement Rulemaking
Federal Damage Prevention Enforcement The PIPES Act maintains the existing role of the States as having gprimary responsibility for one call enforcement against excavators, and supports the States by providing additional grant funds The PIPES Act gives PHMSA limited Federal enforcement authority over excavators in States that do not have or are not exercising enforcement authority, but requires rulemaking before direct Federal authority can be used PHMSA will issue an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) on the enforcement issue, target date is June 2009
PIPES ACT OF 2006 SEC. 2. PIPELINE SAFETY AND DAMAGE PREVENTION. (f) LIMITATION. The The Secretary may not conduct an enforcement proceeding under subsection (d) for a violation within the boundaries of a State that has the authority to impose penalties described in section 60134(b)(7) ) against persons who violate that State s damage prevention laws, unless the Secretary has determined that the State s enforcement is inadequate to protect safety, consistent with this chapter, and until the Secretary issues, through a rulemaking proceeding, the procedures for determining inadequate State enforcement of penalties.
PHMSA must: Federal Damage Prevention Enforcement Establish procedures for determining whether a State s enforcement program is inadequate Establish administrative procedures for the State to contest a notice of inadequacy Establish minimum Federal standards for excavators that PHMSA would enforce in a State found to be inadequate Establish adjudication process in the event an excavator is cited by PHMSA
Federal Damage Prevention Enforcement What enforcement models seem to work nationwide? A designated enforcement authority other than the Attorney General An equitable and rational enforcement model that is either traditional (enforcement authority leads) or by committee (committee partners with enforcement authority) Field enforcement by a party other than local law enforcement
Federal Damage Prevention Enforcement FYI, the PIPES Act Also States: One call use is mandatory for excavators in states with one call centers An excavator who causes damage to a pipeline facility that may endanger life or cause serious bodily harm or damage to property: Must promptly report the damage to the owner or operator of the facility; and If the damage results in the escape of any flammable, toxic, or corrosive gas or liquid, the excavator: Must promptly report to other appropriate p p y p pp p authorities by calling 911
Pipelines and Informed Planning Alliance (PIPA)
Population Encroachment The Pipeline Safety Improvement Act 2002 (PSIA) required DOT and FERC to study land use practices, zoning ordinances, and preservation of environmental resources relative to transmission pipeline ROW and maintenance.
Population Encroachment Information from study to be used to: Determine effective practices to limit encroachment on transmission pipeline ROW. Address and prevent hazards and risks to public, workers, and environment associated with ROW encroachment. Raise awareness of the risks and hazards of encroachment. Address preservation of environmental resources while maintaining ROW, recognizing pipeline operators regulatory obligations.
Population Encroachment Study, TRB Special Report 281, September 2004 Recommendations to PHMSA: Develop risk-informed land use guidance. Involve all stakeholders. Include expertise in risk analysis, risk communication, land use management, and developing regulation. Ensure process is transparent, independent, and peer reviewed. Refine the guidance over time. Recommendations to transmission pipeline industry: Develop best practices for specification, acquisition, development, and maintenance of transmission pipeline ROW.
Pipelines and Informed Planning Alliance (PIPA) January, 2008 PHMSA hosted the inaugural meeting of the Pipelines and Informed Planning Alliance (PIPA) Approximately 130 people attended the meeting and are participating in the PIPA effort. PIPA is a partnership of stakeholders whose purpose is to further enhance pipeline safety PIPA focus to develop more detailed guidance for property development in the vicinity of transmission pipelines.
Pipelines and Informed Planning Alliance (PIPA) Through PIPA, stakeholders are engaging each other to develop best practices for property development adjacent to transmission pipelines. PIPA is: Investigating existing best practices and different stakeholder needs and challenges Seeking consensus to develop practical guidance on: Land use policies Range of appropriate land uses Setbacks and other measures Discussing topics and approaches to include: Model local zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations Model planning policies Model state legislation
PIPA Task Teams Protecting Communities What should pipeline safety stakeholders do, or avoid doing, adjacent to the pipeline right-of-way to reduce the risk to communities? Protecting Transmission Pipelines What should pipeline safety stakeholders do, or avoid doing, on the right-of-way to reduce the risk to transmission pipelines while preserving environmental resources? Communication How should the risks to transmission pipelines and communities be communicated among pipeline safety stakeholders?
PIPA Task Teams Followed a discussion and consensus agreement process. Pursued respective goals separately via series of telephone and web-assisted conferences. Supported by a mid-point face-to-face meeting to discuss cross-team issues and ensure initiative was on track.
PIPA Report Baseline Recommended Practices These practices should be implemented to prepare stakeholders for either future community development or new transmission pipeline siting. New Pipeline Recommended Practices Pipeline e operators should implement e these practices when planning the route for new transmission pipelines. New Development Recommended Practices Stakeholders should implement these practices when new development is proposed in the vicinity of transmission pipelines.
PIPA Report The practices are grouped by the stakeholder audience taking action. In addition to the information contained in the scenario section, a Practice Description expands on the Practice Statement to provide additional details. The audience sections provide practices for key stakeholders: Local Government Property Developer/Owner Pipeline Operator Real Estate Commission
PIPA Report Completion of the PIPA Final Report anticipated July 2009. Final PIPA Report will be integrated into an interactive application on PHMSA s Stakeholder Communications website. Stakeholder s will be encouraged to refer to website for land use planning guidance and to link to it from their own websites. Use of website will enhance ability to accommodate and make available future revisions.
Summary Data shows progress and the trends are positive; effective damage prevention will strengthen trends Many damage prevention initiatives are well underway PHMSA wants to help states improve their damage prevention programs through the nine elements PHMSA can provide administrative and financial support to states to improve their damage prevention programs Fair, transparent and accountable enforcement is critical to an adequate state damage prevention program
Thank You David Spangler (202) 366-5064 David.spangler@dot.gov http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/damagepreventio i h t / /D ti n.htm Questions?