Transcript Damage Prevention – Are States as engaged as they need to be

Damage Prevention –
Are States as engaged
as they need to be ?
Pipeline Safety Trust Meeting
November 20, 2008
New Orleans, LA
Glynn Blanton, PHMSA State Programs
PHMSA State Programs
Perspective - Are States engaged?
 Grants available to States
Background & Results
 State Damage Prevention Grant
 PHMSA Pipeline Safety Certification
Requirements with States (Damage Prevention)
 Assistance to States & Stakeholders
 States engaged in meeting the nine elements in
PIPES Act of 2006
Background on Damage Prevention
Grants available to States
– Damage Prevention Best Practices Implementation
Grant
• Established by Transportation Equity Act for the
21Century (TEA 21)
• Directed to designated State agencies on
improvements in existing one-call notification
systems.
• Encouraged the use of Best Practices (Common
Ground Report) released in 1999.
• $6 million, limited 2 yr program (2000-2001)
Background on Damage Prevention
Grants available to States
– Pipeline Safety Program One-Call Grant
• Established 1996 & reauthorized in PIPES Act of
2006
• This is an optional $1.0 million grant for states
• Only open for states that have a certification or
agreement with PHMSA to do pipeline safety
inspections
• This grant program has a maximum amount
request of $50,000 per state and supports initiatives
to further promote efforts specifically for damage
prevention, including one-call legislation, related
compliance activities, training and public
education.
Background on Damage Prevention
Grants available to States
– State Damage Prevention Grant (New)
• Established by PIPES Act of 2006 ($1.5 million)
• Maximum request $100,000
• Any State authority that:
– is or will be responsible for preventing damage to
underground pipeline facilities
– participates in the oversight of pipeline transportation
pursuant to an annual 49 U.S.C. §60105 certification or
49 U.S.C. §60106 agreement in effect with PHMSA
– is designated by the Governor via letter to be able to
apply for the grant on behalf of that State
Results of Damage Prevention
Grants
 Damage Prevention Best Practices
Implementation Grants
• $6 million, limited 2 yr program (2000-01)
– 24 grants to 17 different States
• One Call Center Mapping systems
• Educational Programs (Dig Safely!)
• Underground facility owners participation
in the state One Call Center
• Technologies in locating facilities (GPS)
• Path Forward (Common Ground Alliance)
Results of Damage Prevention
Grants
– Pipeline Safety Program One-Call Grant
• 39 States requested $1,865,364 in funds for
calendar year 2008
– Only $1.043 funds were available
– Priority 1 - Compliance Enforcement and
monitoring, 811 campaign (Funded 80% level)
– Priority 2 - One Call Membership Initiatives
for Operators , consolidation of multiple one
call centers (Funded at 51% level)
– Priority 3 - Public Service Announcements ,
training programs for excavators, locators
(Funded at 21% level)
Results of Damage Prevention
Grants
Pipeline Safety Program One-Call Grant (cont’d)
• Number of damages to underground facilities 2003 to 2007 per 1,000 gas locate
tickets. The states listed below have been awarded the grant since 1996.
NY
CT
MN
OR
VA
2003
6.81
5.68
3.47
9.2
2.3
2004
5.97
5.77
3.0
9.9
2.1
2005
5.88
5.36
3.04
11.1
2.46
2006
4.21
4.41
2.95
11.4
2.28
2007
3.54
4.18
2.86
8.4
2.03
State Damage Prevention Grant
– State Damage Prevention Grant (New)
• 15 grants totaling $1,327,497 awarded in 2008
• 2 grants to One Call Centers. (Utility Notification
Center of Colorado & Dig Safely New York, Inc.)
• 13 grants awarded to state agencies.
• A written application describing the current status of
the State Damage Prevention Program and plans for
improvements was required.
• Progress reports due October 31, 2008 or later based
on grant award date.
Damage Prevention via PHMSA
Certification with States (cont’d)

PHMSA uses two means to assess a State agency’s
overall performance in the pipeline safety program
–



an annual program evaluation, and a review of information
attached by the State agency to its annual certification.
The evaluation is used primarily to determine
performance (e.g., operating practices, quality of State
agency inspections, investigations, compliance actions
and adequacy of recordkeeping).
The certification/agreement attachments are used
primarily to determine the State agency’s compliance
with program requirements (e.g., extent of jurisdiction,
inspector qualifications, and adoption of applicable
Federal regulations).
A State agency’s performance is the major factor
considered in allocating grant-in-aid funds each year.
Damage Prevention via PHMSA
Certification with States


The certification agreement does require the
state to encourage and promote the
establishment of a program designed to prevent
damage by demolition, excavation, tunneling,
or construction activity to the pipeline facilities
to which the certification applies and addresses
the elements contained in Section 60134(b) of
PIPES Act of 2006.
Fifty-two state agencies participate in the
pipeline safety program.
PHMSA Assistance

PHMSA assistance to States/other stakeholders
pertaining to discussions in meeting the nine
elements in PIPES Act of 2006
–
State Commissioners
•
•
–
National Association of Regulatory Commissioners
(NARUC) Winter & Spring Meetings (2008)
NARUC Passed Resolution - urge State commissions to
review their current excavation damage prevention programs
and use the EDPI (DPAP) guide document in making
improvements.
Stakeholder Organization Meetings
•
•
•
•
The Associated General Contractors of America
NAPSR Board of Directors
Common Ground Alliance Annual Meeting
American Gas Association
States Initiatives
 Meetings/discussions with state and stakeholder
representatives via Regional CGA and State One Call
Damage Prevention Committees are occurring.
 Idaho PUC is currently conducting a survey of the
underground facility owners requesting input into
improvements in the state damage prevention law. Survey
conducted over the internet.
 Kansas PSC and other state agencies are collecting data
on damages to underground facilities via CGA DIRT
software program.
 Tennessee Regulatory Authority & Vermont Department
of Public Services are performing a study on damage
prevention and proposed changes in their state law.
States Engaged
 Are States as engaged as they need to be in
Damage Prevention?
– Considering the financial and legislative
restrictions!
– They are making progress; one small baby
step at a time!
Questions??
 Thank you for your attention.