Transcript Slide 1

DAMAGE PREVENTION:
ARE THE STATES AS ENGAGED
AS
THEY NEED
TO
BE?
CHRISTINA SAMES
VICE PRESIDENT
OPERATIONS & ENGINEERING
AMERICAN GAS ASSOCIATION
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
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)
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
180
Outside Force - Serious Incidents Breakdown
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1st/2nd party
Serious Incidents
3rd party
Earth movement
No data
PHMSA’s Distribution Stats: Significant
Significant Incidents: 2004-2007
4% 3%
6%
27%
Excavation/
Mechanical Damage
Other Outside Force
Natural Force
19%
Misc./Unknown
11%
Material/Weld
30%
Human Error
5
PHMSA’s Distribution Stats: Serious
Serious Incidents 2004-2007
4%
4%
23%
8%
Excavation/ Mechanical
Damage
Other Outside Force
Natural Force
Misc./Unknown
31%
23%
Material/Weld
Human Error
7%
Corrosion
6
Distribution Integrity Management
Program (DIMP)
EDP Team included:
–PHMSA
–Distribution utilities
–State pipeline safety representatives
–Contractors
–Common Ground Alliance
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?
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.
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
State Without Effective Enforcement
Leaks Repaired/1000 Tickets
Third Party (2000-2003) and Excavation (2004)
VA: Effective Enforcement Program
MN: Effective Enforcement Program
Excavation Damages per 1000 Tickets
Comprehensive vs. Limited
Example: Southwest Gas
Damages / 1000 Tickets by State
14.00
12.00
11.69
10.08
10.00
8.30
8.00
8.00
6.67
6.00
6.30
5.61
4.55
4.02
4.00
2.00
3.32
1.49
1.43
1.24
1.49
1.76
0.00
2003
2004
Arizona
2005
California
2006
Nevada
2007
Example: AGL
Note: AL’s effective enforcement began 2000
Damaged gas lines
Work Volumes
1999
2008
expected
6968
2809
730,600 660,600
-60%!
-10%
Damage Rate/1000 locates:
Excavators
7.74
4.27
-39%
Damage Rate/1000 locates:
Locators
1.80
0.47
-74%
16
Elements of Effective EDP Program
1. Enhanced communications between
operators and excavators
2. Foster support/partnership of all stakeholder
3. Operator’s use of performance measures
4. Partnership in employee training
5. Partnership in public education
6. Dispute resolution process
7. Fair and consistent enforcement
8. Use of technology to improve process
9. Data analysis to improve program
effectiveness
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)
18
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
19
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%
20
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%
21
Questions?
Christina Sames
202-824-7214
[email protected]