Damage prevention are the states as engaged as they need to be
Download
1 / 23

Damage Prevention: Are the States as Engaged as They Need to Be? - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 114 Views
  • Uploaded on

Damage Prevention: Are the States as Engaged as They Need to Be?. Christina Sames Vice President Operations & Engineering American Gas Association. Today’s Presentation . What we know about excavation damage to distribution pipelines

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Damage Prevention: Are the States as Engaged as They Need to Be?' - chika


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Damage prevention are the states as engaged as they need to be

Damage Prevention: Are the States as Engaged as They Need to Be?

Christina Sames

Vice President

Operations & Engineering

American Gas Association


Today s presentation
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
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
AGF Findings

  • On distribution lines, outside force is

    • 60% of incidents

    • Nearly 50% of all serious incidents

  • 3rd party damage accounts for nearly 75% of the serious outside force damage incidents




Distribution integrity management program dimp
Distribution Integrity Management Program (DIMP)

EDP Team included:

  • PHMSA

  • Distribution utilities

  • State pipeline safety representatives

  • Contractors

  • Common Ground Alliance


Dimp edp focus
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
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
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
State Without Effective Enforcement

Leaks Repaired/1000 Tickets

Third Party (2000-2003) and Excavation (2004)



Mn effective enforcement program
MN: Effective Enforcement Program

Excavation Damages per 1000 Tickets




Example agl
Example: AGL

Note: AL’s effective enforcement began 2000


Elements of effective edp program
Elements of Effective EDP Program

  • Enhanced communications between operators and excavators

  • Foster support/partnership of all stakeholder

  • Operator’s use of performance measures

  • Partnership in employee training

  • Partnership in public education

  • Dispute resolution process

  • Fair and consistent enforcement

  • Use of technology to improve process

  • Data analysis to improve program effectiveness


What is working
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)


What doesn t work
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


From aga s recent safety summit
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%


From aga s recent safety summit1
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%


Questions

Questions?

Christina Sames

202-824-7214

csames@aga.org