Excavation Damage Prevention - Georgia Public Service ...fp.psc.state.ga.us/2012 PIpeline Safety Seminar... · Excavation Damage Prevention - 1 - ... HMT OPS RITA NTSB FMCSA FHWA

U.S. Department of Transportation

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials

Safety Administration

Excavation Damage Prevention

- 1 -

Georgia Municipal Association – Gas Section &

Georgia Public Service Commission

April 9 -12, 2012

Arthur O. Buff, P.E. CATS Program Manager PHMSA, Southern Region

PHMSA OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY SOUTHERN REGION

http://www.call811.com/





• What is PHMSA?

• Excavation Incidents

• Pipeline Challenges

• PIPES and PSRCJC Acts

• Damage Prevention Programs

• Information Sources

PRESENTATION OVERVIEW





PHMSA NHTSA

FTA

MARAD FAA

FRA

OPS HMT

RITA

NTSB

FMCSA

FHWA

DOT

DOT ORGANIZATION





Western Region

Lakewood

Southern Region

Atlanta

Eastern Region

HQ

Washington, D.C.

Trenton

Southwest Region

Houston

T&Q

Oklahoma City

Central Region

Kansas City

PHMSA REGIONS/OFFICES





Mission: To ensure the safe,

reliable, and

environmentally sound

operation of the

Nation’s pipeline

transportation system.

OFFICE OF PIPELINE SAFETY (OPS)





SIGNIFICANT INCIDENTS, U.S PIPELINES

(1992 – 2011)

Significant

Incidents Fatalities Injuries Property Damage

5,642 376 1,540 $6,051,633,707

Hazardous liquids spilled: 2,503,103 barrels





P-Rex

Significant Incidents Caused by Excavation Damage (1992 thru 2011)

EXCAVATION

DAMAGE NUMBER FATALITIES INJURIES

PROPERTY

DAMAGE

Operator/

Contractor 165 1 59 $45,848,299

Third Party 1,124 143 468 $440,301,165

Previous

Damage 5 0 0 $1,128,634

Unspecified

Damage 27 4 5 $37,561,864

Total 1,321 148 532 $524,839,962

23.4 % 39.4% 34.5%





• Excavation damage is a serious

threat to public safety and

pipeline integrity

• Data indicates downward trend

reportable incidents

gas distribution leaks

• Excavation damage is preventable

• We can do more

Did I just hit a high pressure

gas line??

WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT

EXCAVATION DAMAGE?





WHY PIPELINE SAFETY LAWS?

• Catastrophic gas transmission failure:

Natchitoches, LA 1965

• 17 fatalities (9 children), 9 hospitalized

• Crater 15 feet deep, 75’ x 30’

• 5 houses leveled, 6 cars and 3 trucks

melted

• House furnishings – 15-20 acres

• Sawmill damaged

• Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act, 8/12/68

• Office of Pipeline Safety, DOT





Hey Doc, did you

call 811!

ARE YOU SURE THERE ARE NO

BURIED PIPELINES??





• Bellingham, WA - June 10, 1999

• 16” Gasoline pipeline leaked into a creek in a city park and stretched for 1 ½ miles

• 1 ½ hours after leak started, gasoline ignited

• 3 fatalities, 8 injuries

• $45 million in property damage

• Leak caused by damage to pipeline during 1994 water treatment plant construction (operator failed to identify or repair)

PIPELINE SAFETY CHALLENGES





• Georgia – July 2010

• 8” Liquid propane gas line ruptured and

explosion

• 1 person injured, frostbite burns

• 1 person killed.

• Double wide mobile home, jeep, bulldozer

and 20 acres of woodland were destroyed

• 50 firefighters battled fire for 5 hours






SAN BRUNO, CALIFORNIA PIPELINE INCIDENT

• Population 41,114, 11 miles south of San Francisco

• September 9, 2010, 6:11 pm (PDT) – 30” gas line ruptured

• Crestmoor neighborhood at Earl Ave. and Glenview Dr.

• Crater 72 feet long, 26 feet wide

• 28 ft. section, 3,000 lbs., 100 feet

• 47.6 million ft.3 of gas released

• 38 homes destroyed, 70 damaged

• 8 fatalities and 58 injuries

• San Bruno PD arrive 6:12 pm

• San Bruno FD arrive 6:13 pm

• 900 emergency responders


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Devastation_in_San_Bruno.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pipe-from-Sanbruno-explosion.jpg





























Allentown, PA – February 9, 2011

• 83 year old C.I. pipe

• 5 fatalities (4 mo. To 79 years)

• 47 properties damaged (10

businesses)

• Hundreds evacuated from apt.

• C.I. pipelines from late 1800’s to early 1900’s

• 120 miles replaced (8 miles/year)

• 79 miles of C.I. pipe needs replacement





Pipeline Safety, Regulatory Certainty and Job Creation Act of 2011 (PSRCJC) Pipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006 (PIPES)

IT’S THE LAW!





Part 192.614

Transportation of

natural and other gas

by pipeline

Where are Damage Prevention Rules?

Parts 186 to 199

Part 195.442

Transportation of

hazardous liquids by

pipeline

TITLE 49

Subtitle B Chapter I

Subchapter D (Pipeline

Safety)





Benefits

Decreased excavation damage

Enhanced public safety

Preservation of the environment

Improved pipeline system performance

Improved relationships with affected public

Less resistance to pipeline activities

WHY DAMAGE PREVENTION?





Pipeline operators must have written programs to prevent damage from excavation activities and participate in qualified “one call” system

What are “excavation activities”?

• Excavation

• Blasting

• Boring

• Tunneling

• Backfilling

• Removal of aboveground structures

by explosive or mechanical means

• Other earthmoving operations

Operators face civil penalties for non-compliance

DAMAGE PREVENTION PROGRAM

49 CFR 192.614

P-Rex





Operators must Participate in “qualified one-call system” • State adopted one-call damage prevention program (49 CFR 198.37) and

• One-call operated in accordance with 49 CFR 198.39

Operators Damage Prevention Program must: • Identify on current basis person(s) who engage in excavation activities in area of pipeline

• Provide for notification of public near pipeline and above person(s) as often as needed:

program’s existence

how to learn location of pipeline before excavation begins

• Provide means of receiving and recording notification of planned excavation

• Notify persons who give notice of intent to excavate, type of temporary marking and how to identify

• Provide for temporary marking of pipelines in area of excavation as far in advance as practicable

• Monitor/inspect pipeline during and after excavation activity as needed

Operators face civil penalties for non-compliance

DAMAGE PREVENTION PROGRAM

49 CFR 192.614 (CON’T)





Excavators must:

• Use applicable state One Call system before

excavating

• Not disregard operator’s location information or

markings (Operators are subject to civil action and

penalties for failure to promptly respond to location

requests)

• Promptly report damage to pipeline facility operator

and call 911 if liquids or gas escapes

PIPES ACT REQUIREMENTS

FOR EXCAVATORS





Section 2 of the PIPES Act includes congressional

mandate to PHMSA:

• Conveys authority to take enforcement action

against excavators who fail to comply with One Call

laws and damage a pipeline facility

• Enforcement authority is limited – only can be used

in states without adequate enforcement

Intent is to incentivize states to adopt/use

enforcement authority

PIPES ACT ENFORCEMENT





Third Party Excavation

Enforcement

Current Status:

ANPRM in FR Oct 29, 2009

NPRM in FR April 1, 2012

Objective: Evaluate state pipeline excavation

damage prevention enforcement programs and

establish the process by which PHMSA will enforce

such programs in states with inadequate

protections in place

Goal: Encourage states to strengthen their

excavation damage prevention laws and

adequately enforce those laws

NPRM – EXCAVATION DAMAGE

PREVENTION ENFORCEMENT





• Effective, balanced enforcement reduces excavation

damages to pipelines

State data supports this

• Enforcement responsibility is inherently a state

responsibility

• Enforcement is only one aspect of effective DP

programs (see the “nine elements”)

PHMSA’S VIEW ON ENFORCEMENT





PIPES Act of 2006, 60134(b)(1) through (9):

1. Enhanced communication between operators and excavators

2. Fostering support and partnership of all stakeholders

3. Operators’ use of performance measures for locators

4. Partnership in employee training

5. Partnership in public education

6. A dispute resolution process that defines the State authority’s

role as a partner and facilitator to resolve disputes

7. Fair and consistent enforcement of the law

8. Use of technology to improve damage prevention processes

9. Data analysis to continually improve program effectiveness

NINE ELEMENTS OF EFFECTIVE

DAMAGE PREVENT PROGRAM





KEY POINTS IN CONSIDERING

NINE ELEMENTS

Damage prevention is a multi-faceted issue.

Damage prevention is a shared

responsibility, but damage prevention is

largely executed at State and local levels.

There is considerable variability between the

provisions of State damage prevention laws

and programs. One size does not fit all.

Damage prevention decisions should be

based on experience and data in each State.





What is SDPPC?

• Questions for states concerning damage prevention programs

• Evaluation of state programs against 9 elements

• Discussions with stakeholders in each state

• Consumer-reports style depiction of results

What is SDPPC Goal?

• Understanding state damage prevention programs, share results, foster improvement at state level

STATE DAMAGE PREVENTION PROGRAM

CHARACTERIZATIONS (SDPPC)





PHMSA SDPPC initiative:

Evaluated state programs against 9 elements

largely implemented program

not implemented, needs to be addressed

partially implemented, actions underway or

planned for improvements or not

GEORGIA DAMAGE PREVENTION PROGRAM

2 3 8 5 6 7 1 4 9





http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/DamagePreventionSummary.htm

STATE LAW/RULE APPLICATION





PSRCJC ACT OF 2011

SIGNED JANUARY 03, 2012





CIVIL PENALTIES

• From $100,000 to $200,000 per violation

• From $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 for series of violations





Section 3, Pipeline Damage Prevention

(a) To Qualify for a Grant, State one-call programs, as a

minimum, must provide for:

• Appropriate participation by all underground

facility operators

• Appropriate participation by all excavators

• Flexible/effective enforcement under State law

(participation in and use of one-call systems)

PSRCJC ACT REQUIREMENTS





(b) State Damage Prevention Programs

• No exemptions to municipalities, State agencies or

their contractors from one-call requirements of program

• DOT will conduct study; impact of excavation on pipeline safety:

A. Analyze frequency/severity of damage incidents

B. Analyze exemptions to state one-call requirements

C. Compare above (B) to types of damage incidents

D. Analyze potential safety benefits and consequences of

eliminating all exemptions mechanized excavation from state

one-call

• Report no later than 2 years from enactment date

PSRCJC ACT REQUIREMENTS (CON’T)





PSRCJC ACT OF 2011 OTHER HIGHLIGHTS

• More pipeline inspectors

• Study leak detection (haz. liq.)

• $110 million/year for safety related grants

• Automatic and remote-controlled shut-off valves

• Study risks of Canadian crude from oil sands

• Regulate non-petroleum hazardous liquids

• Increased technical and geospatial data collection





811 CAMPAIGN

• Personal interest of the “Boss”

• Excavation damage is preventable

• Contractor hired for campaign

• Starting April 2012 – 30 sec. PSA

• House/Senate resolutions:

“National Safe Digging Month”

APRIL





http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs/rulemaking

FEDERAL DAMAGE PREVENTION ENFORCEMENT INFORMATION


http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline/regs/rulemaking




http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/DamagePrevention.htm

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AT PHMSA DAMAGE PREVENTION WEBSITE


http://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/comm/DamagePrevention.htm




Artie Buff [email protected]

404-832-1155


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

Excavation Damage Prevention - Georgia Public Service ...fp.psc.state.ga.us/2012 PIpeline Safety Seminar... · Excavation Damage Prevention - 1 - ... HMT OPS RITA NTSB FMCSA FHWA