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

Pipeline Safety Trust Meeting

November 20, 2008

New Orleans, LAGlynn 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.