1 / 29

Damage Prevention PHMSA Update

Annmarie Robertson PHMSA/Office of Pipeline Safety 317-253-1622 annmarie.robertson@dot.gov. Damage Prevention PHMSA Update. Excavation damage: what we know. Excavation damage is a serious threat to public safety and pipeline integrity

march
Download Presentation

Damage Prevention PHMSA Update

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Annmarie Robertson PHMSA/Office of Pipeline Safety 317-253-1622 annmarie.robertson@dot.gov Damage Prevention PHMSA Update

  2. Excavation damage: what we know • Excavation damage is a serious threat to public safety and pipeline integrity • Data indicates overall decrease in incidents caused by excavation damage as well as gas distribution incidents • Excavation damage is largely preventable • We can do more

  3. Excavation Damage: Pipeline Incidents Past 20 Years

  4. Pipeline Incidents – past 3 years

  5. Gas Distribution incidents: 2005 –2009 (significant)

  6. Damage Prevention: PHMSA’s View A shared responsibility Pipelines are critical infrastructure that are essential to our way of life. They also carry hazardous materials that pose risks to people and the environment. Damage prevention is a multi-faceted issue Damage prevention programs vary from state to state Guiding principles found in 9 Elements Cited in 2006 PIPES Act

  7. Damage Prevention: What we’re doing • Tools - for PHMSA as well as for state stakeholders (laws, data, status of state programs, grant projects, etc.) • State/local outreach: meetings, letters of support, teleconferences, support of 811, sharing of information • Partnerships: States, Common Ground Alliance, Public, Trade Associations, Safety Organizations • Rulemaking – enforcement

  8. Nine Elements: What are they? Effective communication between operators and excavators from excavation notification to completion of excavation Fostering support and partnership of all stakeholders Operators’ use of performance measures for locators Partnership in employee training Partnership in public education A dispute resolution process that defines the enforcement agency as a partner and facilitator Fair and consistent enforcement of the law Use of technology to improve damage prevention processes Data analysis to continually improve program effectiveness

  9. Nine Elements: Where do we stand? PHMSA’s goal is to understand state damage prevention programs, foster improvement at state level PHMSA needs clear documentation of state programs to explain funding decisions and to show progress over time Characterization Tool project

  10. PHMSA DP Efforts: Nine Element Characterization Tool • What is the Characterization Tool? • Fall, 2009 – Spring, 2010: Questions for states concerning damage prevention program • Discussions with stakeholders in each state • Consumer-reports style depiction of results • Goal: Understanding state damage prevention programs, share results, foster improvement at state level

  11. Characterization Tool Resultshttp://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/sdppc.htm

  12. CT Results – Element 7

  13. Characterization Tool –Seeking Feedback • Initial results based on conversations with pipeline safety and one-call representatives only • PHMSA seeking feedback on results from other damage prevention stakeholders • Feedback will be routed to PHMSA and will be distributed to states • Characterization Tool results on website subject to change based on feedback and discussion

  14. Characterization Tool • Lessons learned from Characterization Tool project: • Results varied based on participants’ approach • Six interviewers • Overall positive response to initiative • There is perceived value in keeping information current • Options for path forward: Updates submitted by states, periodic PHMSA outreach? Other?

  15. PHMSA DP Efforts: Enforcement PHMSA has existing enforcement authority over pipeline operators and their contractors Section 2 of the PIPES Act of 2006: Conveys authority to take enforcement action against excavators who fail to comply with One Call laws and damage a pipeline facility Enforcement authority is limited – only can be used in states without adequate enforcement Intent is to incentivize States to adopt/use enforcement authority

  16. Federal Damage Prevention Enforcement PHMSA must: 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 when excavator is cited by PHMSA

  17. 10/29/2009: PHMSA Issued ANPRM • ANPRM = Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Soliciting feedback • Criteria for determining if a state’s enforcement of damage prevention laws is adequate • Process for determining if a state’s enforcement of damage prevention laws is adequate • Standards to be used in federal enforcement in states with inadequate enforcement program • Process for enforcement actions • Goal is to minimize need for federal enforcement

  18. Common Comments to ANPRM Keep it simple Clearly define what is expected of state enforcement programs to be considered adequate Minimize exemptions Enforcement must be balanced – excavators as well as facility owners must be accountable

  19. Enforcement – Next steps • http://www.regulations.gov, Docket ID PHMSA-2009-0192 • PHMSA evaluating comments (MANY) on ANPRM and will publish an NPRM late 2010 • Publication of Final Rule, implementation of program • Ex Parte rules prohibit discussion of NPRM details

  20. PHMSA’s DP Efforts: Damage Prevention Grants • State Damage Prevention • One Call Grants • Technical Assistance Grants also may be damage prevention-focused

  21. State Damage Prevention Grants Eligibility: Any State authority State must have pipeline safety program 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 Program is to help states align with the Nine Elements

  22. Grant Program Information • SDP: –project progress reports, along with contacts for questions concerning awards/projects can be found at • http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/ • One Call Grant program info also available on this site

  23. Stakeholder Communications Home Page http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm

  24. Damage Prevention Page

  25. SDP Grant info page

  26. Coming Soon: Laws and Rules • Analysis of state laws/rules recently completed – currently being vetted • 56 fields: Tolerance zone, ticket life, positive response, whitelining, design ticket, locatable facilities, etc. • Review of gas distribution operator leak data: • In early stages • 90,000 leaks per year repaired that are caused by excavation (five-year data) • Trending downward

  27. Summary • Excavation damage to pipelines remain a National safety and economic concern • Comprehensive state damage prevention programs, including effective enforcement, are critical to reducing risks to pipelines. • PHMSA is addressing damage prevention through many initiatives, including fiscal support to states • For more info, please visit web site

  28. Thank YouAnnmarie Robertson317-253-1622annmarie.robertson@dot.govPHMSA Stakeholder Communications web site:http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/commCommon Ground Alliance:www.commongroundalliance.com811 materials:www.call811.com

More Related