Implementing a Strong State Damage Prevention Program

Danny McGriff NAPSR National Chairman November 4, 2010 New Orleans

Excavation Damage Macro Drivers

Excavation damage control is critical to protect fuel pipelines as it can cause severe consequences Other infrastructure also impacted but not as life threatening as a gaseous or liquid fuel leak As population has grown, the infrastructure has grown More housing, businesses, institutions, industry Add-ons, changes, renewals also increased Economy is a driver of activity

–

Trend in excavation damage mirrors trend in construction activity Technology has had a contributing role

–

Explosive growth in communications (e.g. fiber optics)

B r i e f H i s t o r y

Pre-1996: incidents growing as macro drivers became stronger NTSB hosted a workshop back in 1996 in D. C.

“Common Ground” Study followed Common Ground Alliance (CGA) created to focus on the issue TEA 21 Act in 1998 federally promoted One-Call program Nationwide 811 number introduced by FCC States creating regional damage prevention councils PIPES Act of 2006 established stronger damage prevention April proclaimed as National Safe Digging Month States intensifying efforts in damage prevention

States played a role in crafting proposed federal legislation PIPES Act of 2006 included 9 elements of effective damage prevention program Have been tested in some states: VA, MN, GA, CT State agencies receive One-Call and Damage Prevention grants

Excavation Damage continues as the leading cause of incidents

Barriers to Stronger Programs # 1

Regulatory jurisdiction by DOT limited to gas and hazardous liquids pipelines Extending jurisdiction up to state law Split authority on oversight vs enforcement

–

e. g. Commission vs judiciary branch of gov’t Some excavators exempt from One-Call; some justified – need study on exemptions Some facilities still unmarked (e.g. sewer laterals, municipal storm drains) Not enough state agency resources to monitor active excavation sites

Barriers to Stronger Programs # 2

Economic Burden Added cost of participation in one-call program Time lost notifying, locating and marking

–

Added help from technology in its infancy Time lost excavating by hand

–

Added help from technology in its infancy

Barriers to Stronger Programs # 3

Enforcement Little or no enforcement -- in some cases, by law In some cases, big hammer lacking (e.g. federal enforcement, larger penalties) Changing the law can be big hurdle

– –

Competing priorities in legislative changes Special interest groups set against law changes

– – –

Not enough political clout to change state law Not having support from key stakeholders Lacking buy-in from all stakeholders to avoid last minute surprises

Barriers to Stronger Programs # 4

Insufficient data to identify biggest offenders in excavation life cycle

–

CGA DIRT data collection helping, but need more

–

Competitive issue among some infrastructure owners/operators National safety performance metric just starting (damages/1000 locate tickets) Inadequate qualification (e.g. locators & contractors) Behavioral motivators: rush, knowledge/ignorance, past experience, lack of foresight