Damage Prevention: Are the States as Engaged as They Need to Be?

1. Damage Prevention: Are the States as Engaged as They Need to Be? Christina Sames Vice President Operations & Engineering American Gas Association

2. Today’s Presentation • What we know about excavation damage to distribution pipelines • Recommendations from DIMP Excavation Damage Prevention (EDP) Team • What’s working, what isn’t • Final thoughts from AGA’s Safety Leadership Summit

3. What We Know American Gas Foundation (AGF) Study • Independent report: Safety Performance and Integrity of the Natural Gas Distribution Infrastructure • Included State Regulators and Utility Operators • Incidents analyzed over a 12 year period (1990 – 2002)

4. AGF Findings • On distribution lines, outside force is • 60% of incidents • Nearly 50% of all serious incidents • 3rd party damage accounts for nearly 75% of the serious outside force damage incidents

6. PHMSA’s Distribution Stats: Significant

7. PHMSA’s Distribution Stats: Serious

8. Distribution Integrity Management Program (DIMP) EDP Team included: • PHMSA • Distribution utilities • State pipeline safety representatives • Contractors • Common Ground Alliance

9. DIMP EDP Focus • What actions, approaches or practices can be applied to reduce excavation damage? • How do states with/without comprehensive damage prevention programs and effective enforcement compare?

10. Findings • Excavation damage is declining but still presents the greatest threat to distribution pipeline safety. • EDP poses the greatest opportunity for safety improvements. • Distribution pipeline safety and EDP are intrinsically linked. EDP must be addressed to improve pipeline safety.

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

12. State Without Effective Enforcement Leaks Repaired/1000 Tickets Third Party (2000-2003) and Excavation (2004)

13. VA: Effective Enforcement Program

14. MN: Effective Enforcement Program Excavation Damages per 1000 Tickets

15. Comprehensive vs. Limited

16. Example: Southwest Gas

17. Example: AGL Note: AL’s effective enforcement began 2000

18. Elements of Effective EDP Program • Enhanced communications between operators and excavators • Foster support/partnership of all stakeholder • Operator’s use of performance measures • Partnership in employee training • Partnership in public education • Dispute resolution process • Fair and consistent enforcement • Use of technology to improve process • Data analysis to improve program effectiveness

19. What is working • Reductions in excavation damage in states with: • Fair and effective enforcement of ALL parties (not just pipeline operators) • Everyone is involved • Enhanced communications among all parties • Partnerships (regional CGAs, partnering with schools, etc)

20. What doesn’t work • Not involving all parties – Everyone must be in the pool (pull them in if you have to) • Excavation laws that exempt entities • Excavation laws with no teeth • Lopsided enforcement • Independence

21. From AGA’s Recent Safety Summit Which of these 9 elements is most effective in reducing excavation damages? • Enforcement of state laws: 54% • Developing effective employee training programs: 21% • Stakeholder collaboration: 19% • Effective dispute resolution process: 6% • Implementation of technology: 0%

22. From AGA’s Recent Safety Summit Which of the 9 elements is most difficult to achieve? • Enforcement of state laws: 36% • Developing effective employee training programs: 8% • Stakeholder collaboration: 34% • Effective dispute resolution process: 23% • Implementation of technology: 0%

23. Questions? Christina Sames 202-824-7214 csames@aga.org