Transcript OREGON JOINT USE ASSOCIATION

OREGON JOINT USE
ASSOCIATION
PRIORITIZATION
OF
REPAIRS
AGENDA
INTRODUCTIONS
 BACKGROUND
 DIVISION 24 HEARING
 COMMITTEE GOALS
 COMMITTEE MEETINGS
 WORK COMPLETED TO DATE
 GOING FORWARD

BACKGROUND
Why
the
Rulemaking?
Rulemaking Process
Rulemaking Timeline
Why the Rulemaking?




It had been over 5 years since
House Bill 2271
PUC Staff Policies not
authoritative when under legal
challenge
Disputes before the Commission
require efficient resolution
DOJ requested White Paper
from PUC Safety Staff
Rulemaking Process

Drafted Proposed Rules with input
from:
• Electric Rates and Planning
Section
• Telecomm Rates & Svc Quality
• Administrative Hearings Division
• Dept. of Justice
• Utility Program Support Services
• Safety & Reliability Section
Rulemaking Process

Informal Rulemaking –
Industry Input
 Four Industry Workshops
 Written comments from
Industry posted on PUC
website
 Revised Draft Rules Proposed
 Second round of written
comments from Industry
Rulemaking Process

Formal Rulemaking
• Hearings Division – ALJ
• OJUA Advisory to the
Commission
• Public Meetings with
Commissioners in Attendance
• OJUA Board of Directors
Meetings (Diverse Views)
• Oral and written testimony
• Commission adoption of Final
Rules
http://apps.puc.state.or.us/edockets/docket.a
sp?DocketID=13128
Rulemaking Timeline




PUC Safety Staff with the input
from other Agencies drafted
proposed changes to Divisions 24
and 28
Informal Workshops with Industry
input began August 2005
Formal Notice of Rulemaking
January 2006 – Docket AR-506
First Workshop March 2006; OJUA
Requests Bifurcation of AR-506
Rulemaking Timeline



AR-506 Phase 1 – Division 24
(Commission Safety Rules)
AR-506 Phase 2 – Division 28
(Commission Pole Attachment,
Dispute Resolution Rules)
OJUA proposed Docket AR-510
(Commission Sanction Rules) in
September 2006 to run
concurrently with AR-506 Phase 2
Rulemaking Timeline
AR-506 Phase 1 March 2006
 Final comments due June
29, 2006
 Final order 06-547 issued
September 26, 2006

Rulemaking Timeline




AR-506 Phase 2 began again
June 2006 with first hearing
October 2006
AR-510 ran concurrently
beginning in September
Last day for written comments
was November 17, 2006
Final Commission Order NO 07137 on April 10, 2007
From the Commission
We commend the OJUA for coordinating
comments from the various industries that
have widely divergent views on sanctions
and for proposing and revising their
recommended rules throughout the
process. Their advice, and willingness to
broker a compromise, has been
indispensable in this process, and we look
forward to continued leadership by the
OJUA in the future.
INTRODUCTIONS
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Bill Woods, PacifiCorp
Jeff Kent, Qwest
Terry Blanc, TPUD
Dave Ramsey, Comcast
Scott Wheeler, Comcast
Troy Rabe, Comcast
James Fife, Verizon
Stuart Sloan, Consumers
Power Inc.
Julian Khouri, PGE
Bill Tierney, PGE
Linda Wolfe, EWEB
Dave Shaw, ORECA
Karen Horejs, EWEB
o Bruce Rogers, PGE
o Dan Gilpin, PGE
o Craig Andrus, EPUD
o Heide Caswell, PacifiCorp
o Gary Lee, Charter
o Bill Kiggins, Clear Creek
o John Wallace, OPUC
o John Sullivan, PGE
o Roger Kuhlman, Salem
Electric
o Wendy Knodel, OJUA
o Joe Clifton, PacifiCorp
o
ORDER NO. 06-547
ENTERED 09/26/06
BEFORE THE PUBLIC UTILITY
COMMISSION
OF OREGON
AR 506
In the Matter of
Rulemaking to Amend and Adopt
Permanent
Rules in OAR 860, Divisions 024 and
028,
Regarding Pole Attachment Use and
Safety.
Prioritization of Repairs
Commission’s Order:
The rules adopted today require immediate
treatment of any violation “that poses an
imminent danger to life or property.” Other
violations must be fixed within two years of
discovery. If there is little or no foreseeable
risk of danger, the operator has a plan to fix
the violation, and all attachers on the relevant
pole agree, some violations may be deferred
to be fixed during the next major work
activity, but no more than ten years after
discovery of the violation.
860-024-0012
Prioritization of Repairs by Operators of Electric Supply Facilities and
Operators of
Communication Facilities
(1) A violation of the Commission Safety Rules that poses an imminent
danger to life or property must be repaired, disconnected, or
isolated by the operator immediately after discovery.
(2) Except as otherwise provided by this rule, the operator must
correct violations of Commission Safety Rules no later than two
years after discovery.
(3) An operator may elect to defer correction of violations of the
Commission Safety Rules that pose little or no foreseeable risk of
danger to life or property to correction during the next major work
activity.
(a) In no event shall a deferral under this section extend for more than
ten years after discovery.
(b) The operator must develop a plan detailing how it will remedy each
such violation.
(c) If more than one operator is affected by the deferral, all affected
operators must agree to the plan. If any affected operators do not
agree to the plan, the correction of violation(s) may not be
deferred.
(4) For good cause shown, or where equivalent safety can be achieved,
unless otherwise prohibited by law, the Commission may for a
specific installation waive
the requirements of OAR 860-024-0012.
Stat. Auth.: ORS Ch. 183, 756, 757 & 759
Stat. Implemented: ORS 757.035
860-024-0012
Prioritization of Repairs by Operators of Electric Supply Facilities and
Operators of
Communication Facilities
(1) A violation of the Commission Safety Rules that poses an imminent
danger to life or property must be repaired, disconnected, or
isolated by the operator immediately after discovery.
(2) Except as otherwise provided by this rule, the operator must
correct violations of Commission Safety Rules no later than two
years after discovery.
(3) An operator may elect to defer correction of violations of the
Commission Safety Rules that pose little or no foreseeable risk of
danger to life or property to correction during the next major work
activity.
(a) In no event shall a deferral under this section extend for more than
ten years after discovery.
(b) The operator must develop a plan detailing how it will remedy each
such violation.
(c) If more than one operator is affected by the deferral, all affected
operators must agree to the plan. If any affected operators do not
agree to the plan, the correction of violation(s) may not be
deferred.
(4) For good cause shown, or where equivalent safety can be achieved,
unless otherwise prohibited by law, the Commission may for a
specific installation waive
the requirements of OAR 860-024-0012.
Stat. Auth.: ORS Ch. 183, 756, 757 & 759
Stat. Implemented: ORS 757.035
860-024-0012
Prioritization of Repairs by Operators of Electric Supply Facilities and
Operators of
Communication Facilities
(1) A violation of the Commission Safety Rules that poses an imminent
danger to life or property must be repaired, disconnected, or
isolated by the operator immediately after discovery.
(2) Except as otherwise provided by this rule, the operator must
correct violations of Commission Safety Rules no later than two
years after discovery.
(3) An operator may elect to defer correction of violations of the
Commission Safety Rules that pose little or no foreseeable risk of
danger to life or property to correction during the next major work
activity.
(a) In no event shall a deferral under this section extend for more than
ten years after discovery.
(b) The operator must develop a plan detailing how it will remedy each
such violation.
(c) If more than one operator is affected by the deferral, all affected
operators must agree to the plan. If any affected operators do not
agree to the plan, the correction of violation(s) may not be
deferred.
(4) For good cause shown, or where equivalent safety can be achieved,
unless otherwise prohibited by law, the Commission may for a
specific installation waive
the requirements of OAR 860-024-0012.
Stat. Auth.: ORS Ch. 183, 756, 757 & 759
Stat. Implemented: ORS 757.035
860-024-0012
Prioritization of Repairs by Operators of Electric Supply Facilities and
Operators of
Communication Facilities
(1) A violation of the Commission Safety Rules that poses an imminent
danger to life or property must be repaired, disconnected, or
isolated by the operator immediately after discovery.
(2) Except as otherwise provided by this rule, the operator must
correct violations of Commission Safety Rules no later than two
years after discovery.
(3) An operator may elect to defer correction of violations of the
Commission Safety Rules that pose little or no foreseeable risk of
danger to life or property to correction during the next major work
activity.
(a) In no event shall a deferral under this section extend for more than
ten years after discovery.
(b) The operator must develop a plan detailing how it will remedy each
such violation.
(c) If more than one operator is affected by the deferral, all affected
operators must agree to the plan. If any affected operators do not
agree to the plan, the correction of violation(s) may not be
deferred.
(4) For good cause shown, or where equivalent safety can be achieved,
unless otherwise prohibited by law, the Commission may for a
specific installation waive
the requirements of OAR 860-024-0012.
Stat. Auth.: ORS Ch. 183, 756, 757 & 759
Stat. Implemented: ORS 757.035
860-024-0012
Prioritization of Repairs by Operators of Electric Supply Facilities and
Operators of
Communication Facilities
(1) A violation of the Commission Safety Rules that poses an imminent
danger to life or property must be repaired, disconnected, or
isolated by the operator immediately after discovery.
(2) Except as otherwise provided by this rule, the operator must
correct violations of Commission Safety Rules no later than two
years after discovery.
(3) An operator may elect to defer correction of violations of the
Commission Safety Rules that pose little or no foreseeable risk of
danger to life or property to correction during the next major work
activity.
(a) In no event shall a deferral under this section extend for more than
ten years after discovery.
(b) The operator must develop a plan detailing how it will remedy each
such violation.
(c) If more than one operator is affected by the deferral, all affected
operators must agree to the plan. If any affected operators do not
agree to the plan, the correction of violation(s) may not be
deferred.
(4) For good cause shown, or where equivalent safety can be achieved,
unless otherwise prohibited by law, the Commission may for a
specific installation waive the requirements of OAR 860-024-0012.
Stat. Auth.: ORS Ch. 183, 756, 757 & 759
Stat. Implemented: ORS 757.035
PRIOTIZATION OF REPAIR
COMMITTEE GOALS
1.
2.
3.
4.
Develop communication protocols
between joint use operators and PUC
on deferred corrections.
Develop specific guidelines for
classification of corrections.
Product developed by committee
endorsed by PUC safety staff.
Entire industry is involved in process by
conducting two workshops throughout
the state.
POR COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND
WORKSHOPS








January 18, 2007 Organizing Meeting at PGE
Salem
February 1, 2007 Committee Work at PGE
Salem
February 14, 2007 Committee Work at EWEB
March 1, 2007 Workshop at PGE in Salem 9 AM
to noon
March 15, 2007 OJUA Board meeting 10 AM to 12
noon then POR Committee Work 1 PM to 3 PM
Comcast Beaverton
March 22, 2007 Committee Work at PGE in
Salem 9 AM to 3 PM
April 5, 2007 Workshop in Central Oregon Bend
Broadband 10 AM to noon Committee Work
noon to 3 PM
April 17 and 18, 2007 Release Final Work at
OJUA NESC Spring Training.
WORK TO DATE
 Decision
Tree
 Five Reasons
 Matrix
 “Affected” Parties
 C Flow Chart
 Plan of Correction
DECISION TREE
John Wallace, Oregon
Public Utility Commission
CONDITION CRITICALITY DECISION TREE
Ye
s
No
C PRIORITY
NO CONDITION
Ye
s
Ye
s
A PRIORITY
B PRIORITY
Do clearance
violations have less
than normally required
worker safety space?
B PRIORITY
Ye
s
No
A PRIORITY
Yes
Yes
s
Ye
No
No
Is structural
soundness likely to
deteriorate further
quickly?
Are clearance
violations below
the
communication
worker zone?
Are clearance
violations within the
public space?
No
B PRIORITY
Do facilities
have proper
clearances?
No
No
s
Ye
DETERMINING
SEVERITY
Is facility
structurally
sound?
B PRIORITY
Ye
s
Are mechanical
stresses showing
increased deterioration
with time?
No
Could reasonably
anticipated events
compromise the
structural integrity of the
facility?
No
B PRIORITY
No
Do facilities show
evidence of
mechanical
stresses, such as
rubbing or
abrasion?
A PRIORITY
s
Ye
Yes
Does
mechanical
stress cause
electrical
system design
to be
compromised?
Is mechanical stress
likely to cause
encroachment into
public space?
No
C PRIORITY
B PRIORITY
Five Reasons
BILL WOODS, PACIFICORP
Conditions that would postpone
repair work beyond two years.
 Road Widening
 Forced Relocate
 Scheduled Pole Replacement
 Scheduled Rebuild
 Scheduled Corrections
MATRIX
OJUA/NESC/DEFECT/CONDITION
TROY RABE, COMCAST
NESC RULES
OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE
RULES
OJUA INSPECTION CODES
MATRIX
OJUA/NESC/DEFECT/CONDITION
2007 NESC
Item
3
4
5
OJUA
Deviation
Code
PG
Section
12
AB
21
PG
21
Code
123
214
215
Page
A
B
C2
39
General Description
A
Protective Grounding
or physical isolation of
non-current-carrying
metal parts
Conditions that
could
reasonably be
expected to
endanger life or
property
Almost
Always
Lines or Poles
Permanently
abandoned
Conditions that
could
reasonably be
expected to
endanger life or
property
Almost
Always
Almost
Always
71
72
Anchor guys and span
guys shall be
effectively grounded
OJUA
DEVIATION
CODE
Code
Deviation
AB
Abandoned
BD
Building
BH
Building/Horizontal
clearance
BV
Building/Vertical clearance
B
Never
C
Exception
Notes
Yes (see
code)
Also see
092C
(page
18)
Never
None
Also see
012C
(page 1)
1. Road Widening
2. Forced Relocate
3. Scheduled Pole
Replacement
4. Scheduled Rebuild
5. Scheduled Corrections
Yes (see
code)
1. Road Widening
2. Forced Relocate
3. Scheduled Pole
Replacement
4. Scheduled Rebuild
5. Scheduled Corrections
“AFFECTED” PARTIES
BILL TIERNEY, PGE
860-024-0012
(c) If more than one operator is affected by the
deferral, all affected operators must agree to the
plan. If any affected operators do not agree to the
plan, the correction of violation(s) may not be
deferred.
“AFFECTED” PARTIES
Violating Operator has burden of
receiving permission from affected parties
Communication shall be in writing (e-mail
or paper)
Negative Option is OK
Requires Plan

“AFFECTED” PARTIES

Pole Owner Inspection

Pole Owner since the owner has an obligation to
maintain its pole in compliance with code.

Other attached operators:


Its workers may be impacted from a safety
and/or operations perspective.
An event may occur because of the violation that
may impact its facilities.
“AFFECTED” PARTIES

Operator Initiated Inspection

Pole owner if the violation is at the pole or
between poles.

Other attached operators

Its workers may be impacted from a safety
and/or operations perspective.

An event may occur because of the violation
that may impact its facilities
C Violation Prioritization Process
C Violation
Identified by the
pole owner or
licensee
B Violation to be
resolved in 2 years
Identify all
companies
attached to the
pole
Record C
Prioritized poles
Tag pole in the
data base for
tracking
Identify the pole
owner
Don’t Agree
Agree the
violation is a C
Violation
Record in database schedule
Agree
The pole owner
has Identified next
major work activity
Time line
Identify
No time line
Pole owner notify
all licensees pole
is scheduled to be
worked
Needs to be
scheduled in
Not meeting 10 Year
No more than 10
years after
discovery
Field Meet identify
time lines and work to
be completed by each
licensees
Field work
completed and C
violation resolved
Change C violation
to complete in
database
PLAN OF CORRECTION
BILL TIERNEY, PGE
NOTIFICATION
 180 DAYS TO CORRECT
 60 TO SUBMIT A PLAN OF
CORRECTION
 MUST BE ACCEPTABLE

GOING FORWARD
Please give feed back:
 Committee members
 OJUA.ORG
 [email protected]
 Bill Woods 503-813-7157
 OJUA 503-378-0595
OJUA Annual Meeting October 4 and 5 2007,
Eagles Crest, Redmond Oregon
OJUA Quarterly meetings.
OJUA.ORG