D AMAGE P REVENTION : A RE THE S TATES AS E NGAGED AS T HEY N EED TO B E ? C HRISTINA S AMES V ICE P RESIDENT O PERATIONS & E NGINEERING A MERICAN G AS A SSOCIATION C HRISTINA S AMES V ICE P RESIDENT O PERATIONS & E NGINEERING A MERICAN G AS A SSOCIATION

Today’s Presentation What we know about excavation damage to distribution pipelines Recommendations from DIMP Excavation Damage Prevention (EDP) Team What’s working, what isn’t Final thoughts from AGA’s Safety Leadership Summit

What We Know American Gas Foundation (AGF) Study Independent report: Safety Performance and Integrity of the Natural Gas Distribution Infrastructure Included State Regulators and Utility Operators Incidents analyzed over a 12 year period (1990 – 2002)

AGF Findings On distribution lines, outside force is – 60% of incidents – Nearly 50% of all serious incidents 3 rd party damage accounts for nearly 75% of the serious outside force damage incidents

PHMSA’s Distribution Stats: Significant 5

PHMSA’s Distribution Stats: Serious 6

Distribution Integrity Management Program (DIMP) EDP Team included: – PHMSA – Distribution utilities – State pipeline safety representatives – Contractors – Common Ground Alliance

DIMP EDP Focus What actions, approaches or practices can be applied to reduce excavation damage? How do states with/without comprehensive damage prevention programs and effective enforcement compare?

Findings Excavation damage is declining but still presents the greatest threat to distribution pipeline safety. EDP poses the greatest opportunity for safety improvements. Distribution pipeline safety and EDP are intrinsically linked. EDP must be addressed to improve pipeline safety.

State Specific Findings States with comprehensive EDP programs that include effective enforcement have a substantially lower risk of excavation damage to pipelines and related consequences. Federal legislation is needed to help develop and implement comprehensive EDP programs at the state level Requires a partnership of all stakeholders

State Without Effective Enforcement Leaks Repaired/1000 Tickets Third Party ( ) and Excavation (2004)

VA: Effective Enforcement Program

MN: Effective Enforcement Program Excavation Damages per 1000 Tickets

Comprehensive vs. Limited

Example: Southwest Gas

Example: AGL Note: AL’s effective enforcement began expected Damaged gas lines %! Work Volumes730,600660,600-10% Damage Rate/1000 locates: Excavators % Damage Rate/1000 locates: Locators %

Elements of Effective EDP Program 1.Enhanced communications between operators and excavators 2.Foster support/partnership of all stakeholder 3.Operator’s use of performance measures 4.Partnership in employee training 5.Partnership in public education 6.Dispute resolution process 7.Fair and consistent enforcement 8.Use of technology to improve process 9.Data analysis to improve program effectiveness

What is working Reductions in excavation damage in states with: – Fair and effective enforcement of ALL parties (not just pipeline operators) – Everyone is involved – Enhanced communications among all parties – Partnerships (regional CGAs, partnering with schools, etc) 18

What doesn’t work Not involving all parties – Everyone must be in the pool (pull them in if you have to) Excavation laws that exempt entities Excavation laws with no teeth Lopsided enforcement Independence 19

From AGA’s Recent Safety Summit Which of these 9 elements is most effective in reducing excavation damages? – Enforcement of state laws: 54% – Developing effective employee training programs: 21% – Stakeholder collaboration: 19% – Effective dispute resolution process: 6% – Implementation of technology: 0% 20

From AGA’s Recent Safety Summit Which of the 9 elements is most difficult to achieve? – Enforcement of state laws: 36% – Developing effective employee training programs: 8% – Stakeholder collaboration: 34% – Effective dispute resolution process: 23% – Implementation of technology: 0% 21

Questions? Christina Sames Christina Sames