Transcript Document
The DIRT Tool Impact on Damage Prevention Sandra Holmes Tempe Mission Palms - Tuesday, August 20, 2013
Also known as Arizona Blue Stake, Inc.
Been in existence as a non-profit since 1974 Arizona’s statewide one call center Process is required by state law One of more than 60 one call centers nationwide Business Hours: 6 a.m. – 5 p.m. M-F, excluding holidays 5/1/2020
August 20, 2013
2
In 1998, U.S. Congress commissioned RSPA to study damage prevention best practices – Damage Prevention is a Shared Responsibility 162 persons Representing 16 different stakeholder groups 132 Best Practices plus Emerging Technologies in 9 Chapters * Planning & Design * Location & Marking * Mapping * Public Education * One Call Center * Excavation * Compliance * Reporting & Evaluation * Emerging Technologies “Common Ground” Study was presented to Secretary of Transportation in June 1999 (Jim Hall) 5/1/2020
August 20, 2013
3
After the study, industry wanted to keep the shared responsibility momentum In 2000, the CGA was formed Member-driven association dedicated to public safety, environmental protection, and integrity of services by promoting effective damage prevention practices 2013 – 1,600 individual members; 250 member organizations and 58 sponsors Mission Identify & disseminate stakeholder best practices Develop and conduct public awareness & education programs Share and disseminate tools & technology for DP Serve as resource for damage & OCC data collection & analysis 5/1/2020
August 20, 2013
4
Committee Structure 1.
Best Practices 2.
3.
Technology Education Programs & Marketing 4.
5.
6.
7.
One Call Systems International Regional Partner Stakeholder Advocacy Data Reporting & Evaluation In 2007, after years of CGA work, FCC assigned 811 to OCC’s 5/1/2020
August 20, 2013
5
Through the work of CGA Committees, Best Practices have continued to be reviewed and added Definitions refined 2013 - released Version 10.0 5/1/2020
August 20, 2013
6
Data Reporting & Evaluation Committee launched Damage Information & Reporting Tool (DIRT) in 2003 – www.cga-dirt.com
Provides method for collecting damage data nationally Data is used to analyze root causes of damages, conduct trend analysis & assess educational programs
How many damages occur each year?
What are the primary causes of damages and near misses?
Are these events increasing or decreasing – and why?
Are some educational campaigns more effective than others?
What types of equipment are being used when damage occurs?
What type of work was being performed?
First report contained 2005 damage data 5/1/2020
August 20, 2013
7
Why should stakeholders submit data to DIRT?
Leads to improvement in internal damage reports Helps to set benchmarks and develop appropriate damage prevention messages Analysis & Recommendations play a role in producing new best practices Submissions are encouraged by stakeholder groups nationwide – AGA/NTDPC Access to data is secure Confidentiality is highly regarded and data is kept anonymous 5/1/2020
August 20, 2013
8
Submissions are encouraged for all stakeholder groups Excavators Facility Owners Contract Locators One Call Centers It’s an already available system for organizations that lack resources or time to develop their own database Virtual Private DIRT allows stakeholders to collect additional company/state specific information 5/1/2020
August 20, 2013
9
2011 Report – released in September 2012 More than 200,000 events were submitted Rates of damage are normalized to #/1,000 OCC tickets created 2011 findings include: When no call is made to OCC, 36% chance a damage will occur When call is made – 99% chance that job will be completed without damage
August 20, 2013
2011 - Natural Gas Supplemental Report Focuses only on damages to natural gas lines Represents 67,000 of the 200,000 national events Enough of a data spread nationally to keep the data providers anonymous 2011 findings when compared to all others: Includes higher quality data Greater percentage attributed to no notice Greater percentage had visible & correct marks Higher % of damages by Occupant/Farmer were not preceded by a ticket to OCC
August 20, 2013
Analysis of Root Causes for Damages
National Report
August 20, 2013
Root Cause by Facility Type`
National Report
August 20, 2013
Deeper Dive into Excavation Practices Not Sufficient
41%
August 20, 2013
Who Isn’t Excavating Sufficiently and How are they Digging?
National Data Natural Gas Data
August 20, 2013
What Type of Work are They Doing?
August 20, 2013
National Data
Natural Gas Data
Did they Call 811 Before Digging?
August 20, 2013
Who Marked the Facilities?
All facility types except gas
Natural Gas only August 20, 2013
In What type of ROW Did the Damage Occur?
August 20, 2013
Excavator Downtime
August 20, 2013
Estimated number of damages resulting from excavation (U.S.)
August 20, 2013
Where Are Damages Occurring?
August 20, 2013
100% 80%
22% History of Root Causes 1%
4%
24% 25% 6%
1%
23% 11%
1%
17%
60%
37% 34% 32% 27% 25%
40% 20%
37% 38% 38% 43% 45%
0%
2008 2009
Excavation practices not sufficient Locating practices not sufficient Miscellaneous root causes
2010 2011 2012
Notification NOT made Notification practices not sufficient
August 20, 2013
Distribution of events by root cause by region August 20, 2013
Ratio of Damages Per 1,000 Locate Tickets Created?
2011
August 20, 2013
Impact of Notification Exemptions on Damages
• • • • •
Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty, and Job Creation Act of
2011 (passed by Congress on Dec 13, 2011) requires PHMSA to conduct a study on the impact of excavation damage on pipeline safety Includes an analysis of exemptions to one-call notice requirements in each state and their potential adverse effect on damages 50 states have 50 unique combinations of exemptions 2012 DIRT report performs some analysis of exemptions impact on the damages In the 36 states where damage rates can be calculated: • 18 states have 5 or more exemptions • 18 states have less than 5 exemptions
August 20, 2013
Avg damage rate per 1,000 tickets – considering exemptions
August 20, 2013
•
Impact of Notification Exemptions on Damages
Report suggests: It is possible that the number of exemptions in a state could have more impact on damage rates than actual exemption itself The inconsistency of exemptions across states could be a contributing factor The variety of exemptions may lead to excavators wrongly assuming a notice exemption exists when in fact it does not Performing similar calculations on your own damage data to assess the impact of exemptions • Report also provides caveats to keep in mind: States with many exemptions, but having good education & enforcement might still have low damage rates Calculations for individual states might have substantially different results when compared to a calculation for an aggregated group including that state.
August 20, 2013
2012 Recommendations
• • • • • • • • • Read the complete report Report your damages to DIRT Remind and refer other stakeholders to report their damages Continue promoting “call before you dig” – even when notification exemptions exist.
Consider the number of, combination of, and rationale for notice exemptions and their potential impact on damage rates Educate the public on existing DP best practices Identify additional stakeholder-specific DIRT reports Urge 100% one call center submission of incoming ticket volumes to the CGA One Call data reporting tool Determine additional external data and information sources – like the PHMSA notice exemptions study – that might introduce new analyses.
August 20, 2013
More information and the history of DIRT reports back to 2005 can be found at:
www.commongroundalliance.com
August 20, 2013
August 20, 2013
August 20, 2013