►
Description
The more than 2.6 million miles of pipelines in the United States—enough to wrap around the Earth 100 times—deliver natural gas, oil and petroleum products around the country.
Most of these pipelines are buried underground, which means that, without proper planning, any construction project that breaks ground runs the risk of damaging pipelines in the extensive infrastructure network. In fact, excavation is one of the primary causes of pipeline damage.
This session examines the risks to the nation’s pipeline network, federal efforts by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to reduce excavation damage and examples of state action to update damage prevention laws.
B
Good
morning
and
good
afternoon
to
everyone
tuning
in
I'd
like
to
thank
you
for
joining
us
today
for
this
National
Conference
of
State
Legislators
webinar,
protecting
pipelines,
efforts
to
reduce
excavation
damage.
Today's
webinar
is
hosted
by
NC
s,
l's
Natural
Resources
and
Infrastructure
Committee.
If
you'd
like
to
see
a
schedule
of
upcoming
webinars
along
with
additional
resources
from
our
energy
program,
please
visit
WWE.
B
My
name
is
Dan
Shea
I'm,
a
policy
associate
here
at
NC,
SL
and
I
will
be
moderating
today's
webinar,
which
will
focus
on
excavation
damage
and
the
risks
it
poses
to
the
nation's
pipeline
infrastructure.
We're
lucky
to
have
a
great
panel
of
speakers
who
will
cover
the
issue
from
the
federal
state
and
industry
perspective.
B
Before
we
begin
I'd
like
to
mention
that
this
webinar
is
being
recorded
and
registrants
will
be
able
to
access
the
recording
of
the
webinar
and
presentation
slides
on
ng
s
l's
web
site,
we
will
send
out
a
link
to
these
resources
once
they're
available.
In
addition,
please
be
sure
to
stick
around
for
the
Q&A
after
the
presentations,
you
can
submit
questions
using
the
question
box
on
the
right
side
of
your
screen
at
any
time.
During
the
webinar,
our
speakers
will
be
answering
these
questions
after
the
final
presentation.
B
As
we
get
ready
to
dig
into
the
subject
matter,
I
thought
I
might
start.
By
offering
a
bit
of
perspective.
We
have
enough
pipelines
in
the
United
States
to
wrap
around
the
earth
100
times
over
and
most
of
those
are
buried
underground.
This
means
that
without
proper
planning,
construction
projects
that
break
ground
could
risk
not
only
could
risk
damage
not
only
to
underground
infrastructure
but
to
individuals
and
property
in
order
to
prevent
damage.
Each
state
has
what's
commonly
referred
to
as
a
one
call
law
or
NA
one
one
law.
B
To
start
us
off,
Ann
Marie
Robertson
will
begin
the
conversation
she
has
been
with
things
are
since
2009.
She
works
with
stakeholders
across
the
country
to
advance
improvements
in
damage
prevention,
data
collection
and
analysis,
and
public
awareness
prior
work
with
Sims,
ax
and
Murray
worked
as
a
pipeline
safety
engineer
and
inspector,
and
also
served
as
chair
of
the
National
Association
of
pipeline
safety
representatives.
Please
welcome
Ann
Marie
to
the
webinar.
A
A
There
we
go
it's
showing
up
now,
since
there's
a
little
bit
of
background
for
those
of
you
on
the
call
who
may
not
know
what
the
pipeline
safety
program
is
all
about
or
who,
since
is,
we
are
an
arm
of
the
USDOT
and
we
work
together
with
States
to
conduct
inspections
and
enforcement
of
federal
and
state
pipeline
safety
regulations.
So
we
have.
Each
state
has
a
pipeline
safety
office
and
we
partner
with
the
states
in
most
cases
that
pipeline
safety
office
is
within
the
Public
Service
Commission
or
equivalent,
but
not
in
every
case.
A
In
exchange
for
the
state's
work
we
provide
up
to
80%
of
their
funding.
So
we
we
have
a
strong
partnership
with
the
states
we
inspect
and
enforce
against
a
series
of
regulations,
everything
from
the
construction,
the
design,
construction,
the
ongoing
maintenance,
the
material
joining
the
drug
and
alcohol
programs.
A
So
as
a
little
bit
of
background,
why
I
dispense
the
care
about
this
program
about
this
problem
about
excavation
traditionally
and
for
many
many
years
excavation
damage
has
been
a
leading
cause
of
serious
pipeline
accidents
and
by
serious
pipeline
accidents.
I
mean
accidents
that
hurt
or
kill
people
when
categorize
our-our
accidents.
So
it's
a
leading
cause
of
all
accidents,
but
it's
especially
leading
cause
of
fear
a
section,
but
the
good
news
is.
A
We
are
making
progress
that
if
you
look
at
the
pie
chart
on
the
left,
you
can
see
that
the
excavation
excavation
damage
cost
serious
incidents
in
about
23%
32
percent
of
the
cases
and
the
22
10-year
average
it's
down
to
10
percent,
and
that
has
been
a
trend
that
has
been
continuing
for
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
years.
For
a
lot
of
reasons
and
I'm
dancing
to
the
next
slide.
A
So
our
approach
to
damage
prevention
is
it's
really
multifaceted,
uu
facts,
so
many
people,
you
know
anyone
who's
digging.
Anyone
who
has
facility
anyone
who
lives
around
facilities,
so
you
can't
just
it
can't
be
only
only
enforcement
or
only
resources
or
only
education.
It
has
to
be
a
little
bit
of
both.
We
take
a
data-driven
approach.
We
we
have
data
that
pipeline
operators
submit
to
us.
So
we
know,
for
example,
that
there
were
eighty
nine
thousand
leaks
on
gas
distribution
lines
last
year
caused
by
excavation
damage.
A
We
know
we
have
that
similar
information
for
each
state,
so
we
use
that
information
to
try
to
target
our
resources
and
try
to
understand
the
damage
prevention
landscape
nationally
and
within
each
state.
We
also
have
regulatory
initiatives.
That's
going
to
be
the
focus
of
my
presentation
today.
We
have
long
had
requirements
for
pipeline
operators
to
participate
in
and
have
damage
prevention
programs
to.
We
have
regulations
requiring
pipeline
operators
to
have
public
awareness,
outreach
to
target
audiences,
certain
messages
to
certain
audiences
at
certain
frequencies
and
certain
methodologies.
A
So
we
we
use
that
as
to
to
drive
down
damages
to
improve
pipeline
safety.
We
also
have
a
new
rule
that
I'm
going
to
be
talking
about.
We
use
direct
resources
in
education.
We
have
grants
to
state,
not
only
the
base
grant
that
we
have
discretionary
grants
that
we
provide
with
two
different
programs
that
are
available
to
stakeholders
in
States
to
improve
their
damage
prevention
programs.
We
have
state
damage
prevention
pages
that
people
use
as
resources
on
our
website.
I
can
tell
you
where
to
go
to
find
that
information.
A
If
you,
google,
stakeholder
communications,
damage
prevention,
Sensa
stakeholder
communications,
damage
prevention,
you
can
find
a
lot
of
information
not
only
about
the
national
program
but
about
state
programs
and,
of
course,
we
use
technology.
We
we
have
a
fairly
robust
rnd
program
and
many
of
the
RMD
much
of
the
Rd
funding
has
been
aimed
at
reducing
excavation
damages,
especially
in
recent
years.
So
those
are
just
those
are
the
different
ways
that
we
approach
damage
prevention.
Another
another
important
component
of
it
is
partnerships.
A
Okay,
so
our
recent
effort
in
this
area
has
to
do
with
enforcement
of
the
state.
One
call
law
in
2006
Congress
expanded
our
authority
to
include
limited
enforcement
authority
over
excavators,
so
we
have
long
had
authority
over
pipeline
operators
ever
since
the
pipeline
program
was
established
not
until
2006
did
we
have
authority
over
really
anyone
else.
So
now
we
have
a
new,
a
new
community
over
which
we
have
authority,
it's
a
limited
Authority
and
the
intent
behind
this.
A
Not
to
exceed
a
maximum
of
two
million
and
some
changes
suggested
for
inflation
inflation
every
year.
So
again,
you
know
when
reiterate
that
the
goal
is
to
incentivize
States
to
enforce
so
Simpson
enforcement
will
not
be
necessary,
I
mean
basically
to
the
next
slide.
So
how
did
we
go
about
this?
We
initiated
a
rulemaking
back
in
2009.
We
intentionally
took
a
go-slow
approach
to
this,
with
the
hope
that
states
would
respond
to
to
the
act
itself
and
try
to
take
actions
to
improve
there
or
actually
establish
enforcement
programs
in
some
case
so
cases.
A
So
we
issued
an
advanced
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
down
in
2000
2009
and
flash
forward
in
2000.
Actually,
2015
is
when
the
final
rule
published
it
became
effective
in
2016
January
of
2016,
and
that
final
rule
established
the
criteria
in
the
process
that
we
use
to
evaluate
states,
one-call
enforcement
programs
and
then
the
criterion
process
and
processes.
We
use
to
conduct
enforcement
against
excavators
in
states
that
have
they're
deemed
to
have
enforcement
that
is
inadequate
to
protect
safety.
The
enforcement
of
the
rule
also
contains
some
policy
more
details
on
the
state
evaluation.
A
How
and
when
we
intend
to
use
the
enforcement
authority
and
I'll
go
into
that
a
bit
later
in
the
presentation
and
those
policies
can
change
as
the
program
matures.
So
in
2016
we
set
out
to
initiative
to
conduct
the
initial
evaluation
of
all
the
state,
one-call
enforcement
programs,
and
we
did
complete
that
I'm.
Moving
on
to
the
next
slide.
So.
A
What
you
see
here
is
a
map
that
shows
the
the
results
of
our
evaluations.
You
can,
you
can
see
the
legend
there,
the
21
states
were
deemed
adequate,
21
states
were
deemed
inadequate,
7
states
were
deemed
inadequate
and
our
contesting
our
findings
and
three
are
pending.
Actually,
this
is
a.
We
have
a
little
bit
of
an
update.
A
A
So
we've
done
our
evaluations,
we
have
determined,
you
know
which
states
are
deemed
adequate
versus
inadequate,
as
we
have
notified
the
states
in
writing
two
of
our
findings.
So
what
we
did
is
we
notified
them
that
this
was
going
to
be
happening
and
then,
with
the
evaluations
were
happening,
and
then
we
notified
them
that
the
results
that
were
deemed
inadequate
had
30
days
to
contest
the
findings,
as
we
did
not
hear
back
from
them
in
30
days
that
their
determination
of
inadequate
remains
until
they're
evaluated.
Again,
this
is
an
annual
evaluation.
A
We
hope
that
eventually
it'll
become
a
very
simple
evaluation
that
in
that
every
state
will
be
adequate
and
we
will
not.
It
will
be
sort
of
a
check.
An
update
of
previous
year's
numbers
and
the
2017
ground
of
evaluation
will
begin
soon.
We
did
the
initial
evaluation
all
face
to
face
I'm
advancing
to
the
next
slide,
and
then
the
some
of
the
upcoming
evaluations
will
be
in
person.
Some
will
be
via
web
or
our
telephone
and
I
just
want
to
point
you
to
the
resources.
A
For
this
particular
rule
we
have
like,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
you
can
go
to
sense
of
stakeholder
communications
prevention
and
find
lots
of
information
about
our
damage
prevention
program
and
what
we
know
about
each
state,
this
particular
URL
here.
The
best
thing
to
do
is
to
Google
sense
of
excavation
enforcement.
Final
rule
is
the
first
one
that
comes
up.
A
The
reporting
form
for
to
report
a
damage
in
a
state
where
the
enforcement
program
has
been
deemed
to
be
inadequate.
So
we
have
a
program.
We
have
the
avail
of
the
ability
to
enforce.
We
need
to
have
the
ability
for
people
to
report
damages
in
those
states.
We
have
FA
cues.
We
have
the
checklist
itself
that
we
use
when
we
go
out
and
evaluate
the
state.
A
Moving
on
to
the
next
slide,
the
rule
is
not
theirs
as
I
think,
there's
been
a
lot
of
questions
and
concern
about
the
rule.
This
is
we're
not
attempting
to
create
a
national
one
call
law
or
take
over
any
state
damage
prevention
program
or
nullify
a
state
damage
prevention
law.
We
know
that
damage
prevention
works
best
at
the
state
level
when
it,
whether
it's
because
through
enforcement
and
and
other
components
we
do
have,
we
do
not
intend
to
establish
a
large
federal
enforcement
regime
program.
A
Our
enforcement
will
be
limited
and
I'll
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
that
in
the
next
upcoming
slide.
I'm.
Moving
on
to
the
next
slide,
and
just
some
general
observations
about
the
program
we
are
seeing
success
when
we
first
published
our
a
NPRM
in
2009,
there
were
nine
states
that
note
had
no
ability
to
at
four
in
the
law,
no
enforcement
provisions
in
the
law
at
all.
Now
there
are
three
with
no
enforcement
ability,
and
the
number
of
other
states
have
made
changes
in
their
laws
to
try
to
improve
their
programs.
A
We
anticipate
the
number
of
states
to
be
deemed
adequate
to
increase
every
year
and
that's
based
on
you
know.
A
number
of
states
have
just
recently
passed
laws.
It
takes
a
while
to
implement
the
program
and
to
make
sure
that
you
know
enforcement
is
happening
as
appropriate.
They
are
improving
processes,
they're
increasing
enforcement
and
focus
on
enforcement
from
getting
resources
in
some
cases,
those
or
since
the
grants
to
help
them
get
their
programs
set
up,
and
certainly
your
legislation
and
rule
making
takes
a
while.
A
As
everyone
knows,
we
are
working
with
stakeholders
in
states
deemed
inadequate.
We
should
be
considered
a
resource
to
any
stakeholder
in
the
state
who
is
interested
in
improving
their
state
damage
prevention
program,
especially
with
respect
to
enforcement,
but
really
in
any
other
areas,
and
just
as
a
side
note,
there's
there's
a
number
of
things
that
have
gaps
in
their
damage
prevention,
laws
that
are
in
general,
not
intentional.
A
There
are
requirements
to
notify
in
the
federal
statute
if
there
is
a
damage
to
a
pipeline.
The
excavator
must
notify
the
pipeline
operator
and,
if
there's
a
relief,
they
must
notify
911
and
because
of
the
way
certain
statutes
are
written.
Sometimes
these
notification
do
not
apply
to
everybody,
because
not
everybody
is
considered
an
excavator
in
every
case
in
every
state.
So
that's
just
something
that
may
need
to
be
addressed
in
a
number
of
states.
That
already
have
you
know
fairly.
Strong
programs
just
have
a
couple
of
more
slides.
A
My
next
slide
is
you
know
what,
if
your,
what
happens
if
your
state
is
deemed
inadequate?
The
best
thing
to
do
is
to
use
the
sims
2
checklist
as
the
initial
resource
and
as
a
roadmap
to
improvement
and
to
not
hesitate
to
contact
us
and
then,
in
fact
you
know
we
will
probably
be.
We
continue
to
contact
our
stakeholders
and
states
that
have
the
need
to
have
inadequate
enforcement
to
see
how
we
can
work
together.
You
know
we
do
and
we
provide
letters
of
support.
We'll
review
proposed
legislation.
A
We
can
educate
stakeholders,
whether
meetings,
large
and
small.
We
can
provide
data.
We
can
connect
one
state
to
another
state
who
may
have
struggled
with
similar
issues,
and
you
may
want
to
know
how
other
states
address
certain
problem
areas
in
their
statutes.
So
we
please
consider
as
a
resource,
and
my
next
slide
is
so
what,
if
your
state
is
deemed
inadequate,
what
is
enforcement
going
to
look
like
we're
going
to
be
going
out
and
establishing
a
team
in
your
States?
You
should
just
utilize
every
excavator
who
damaging
the
pipeline.
The
answer
to
that
is
no.
A
A
You
know
if
there
is
an
enforcement
authority
contact
that
enforcement
authority
to
find
out
if
they
intend
to
act,
and
we
will
work
side
by
side
with
those
authorities
to
to
make
sure
that
we
can,
if
they
need
assistance
and
investigating
that
you
know,
we
can
provide
that
and
we'll
monitor
the
progress
of
that
and
hopefully
not
have
to
take
enforcement.
But
we
still
do
have
the
authority
to
enforce
and
when
we
do,
if
we
have
to
enforce
in
any
state
it
will
probably
be
kind
of
noisy
and
it
will.
C
A
A
As
to
you
know
what
their
enforcement
program
looks
like,
why
they
enforce
in
some
cases
and
not
in
other
cases,
and
what
are
the
results,
because
we
know
that
states
who
have
robust
forcement
programs
that
include
data
collection
and
analysis,
consistently
report
downward
trends
and
damage
rates
and
improve
safety.
So
that
and
that's
that's
where
we
hope
all
the
states
are
I,
think
that
was
my
last
slide.
So
I
will
go
ahead
and
go
on
mute
and
let
the
next
presenter
go.
There's
my
contact
information.
A
B
B
Our
second
presenter
today
is
Eric's
portly.
He
has
nearly
40
years
of
experience
in
the
natural
gas
distribution
business.
Having
worked
in
various
administrative
and
field
capacities,
including
construction
engineering,
marketing
damage
prevention
and
compliance.
He
currently
works
as
the
senior
manager
of
damage
prevention
claimed
and
public
awareness
for
UGI
utilities.
A
subsidiary
of
UGI
corporation
UGI
utilities
is
a
Pennsylvania
based
local
distribution
company
with
630,000
natural
gas
customers
across
45
counties
in
Pennsylvania,
and
one
County
in
Maryland,
okay,
Eric
I'm,
going
to
turn
it
over
to
you.
C
C
What
I'd
like
to
do
is
on
my
first
slide:
I
have
a
little
disclaimer
up
top
a
little
clarification.
I
want
to
talk
about,
and
while
I'm
doing
that,
you'll
take
a
look
at
the
talking
points.
We
can
move
quickly
through
the
to
the
next
slide.
Then,
but
majority
of
my
discussion
is
going
to
be
premise
from
a
30,000
foot
view
from
a
Pennsylvania
operator
view,
as
well
as
from
a
distribution,
local
distribution
company
perspective,
as
opposed
to
a
transmission
pipeline
of
you
that
you
know
those
pipeline
to
traverse
our
nation
and
whatnot.
C
So
it's
really,
you
know
we
deliver
the
gas
to
the
burner
tip.
So
you
know
our
facilities
are
that
much
closer
to
the
public
and
therefore
in
the
excavation
activity
footprint
on
a
daily
basis,
so
that
distinction
hit
me
a
number
of
years
ago.
I
attended
a
fims,
a
workshop
focused
on
reducing
damages,
and
you
know
the
goal
was
to
brainstorm,
come
up
with
some
concepts
regarding
how
to
reduce
damages
and
we're
putting
stuff
up
on
the
board
and
I.
C
Lo
and
behold,
I
recognize
many
of
the
recommendations,
but
they
all
didn't
seem
to
be
near
and
dear.
The
things
that
I
would
suggest
would
maybe
move
the
needle
in
that
regard,
so
I
leaned
over
and
I
asked
the
gentleman
next
to
me,
who
happened
to
be
with
a
large
a
pipeline
operator
out
of
Texas
I
said
how
many
damages
did
you
have
last
year
and
he
kind
of
pondered
the
question
a
second.
He
said
we
didn't
have
any
damages,
but
we
had
five
near
misses:
I
guess
set
back
at
my
feet.
C
A
second,
a
little
stunned
and
I
was
sitting
there
as
an
operator
of
a
distribution
company
operator
with
519
damages
on
the
books
for
the
year
and
I
realized
that
we
clearly
know
had
different
challenges
out
there,
both
very
important,
but
at
the
same
time
that
require
different
solutions
to
be
successful.
Now,
with
that
said,
I
doing
a
thank
FINRA
for
the
opportunity.
Last
fall
to
speak
at
one
of
the
conference's.
Amri
talked
about
being
the
research
and
development
conference
in
Cleveland,
and
it
was
part
of
a
silo
focused
on
local
distribution
company
issues
pacifically.
C
C
Kimmel
talks
about
the
concept
of
being
a
shared
responsibility.
We
certainly
agree
that
damage
prevention
is
and
when
it
works
and
everybody's
collaborating
and
projects
are
getting
done.
You
know
it's
clearly,
just
it's
working
the
right
direction.
We
all
recognize
that
we'll
talk
about
the
current
PA
role
here
in
Pennsylvania
in
the
structure
as
the
base
tenant
to
be
effective,
the
number
of
provisions
incomparably
we
look
at
the
tools.
C
The
law
provides
its
statutes
in
other
states,
maybe
don't
enjoy
as
a
robust,
a
number
of
opportunities
to
reduce
damages,
so
truly
a
good
shared
responsibility
environment.
The
gap
that
exists
in
Pennsylvania,
though,
is
in
the
compliance
end,
with
the
provisions
and
intent
of
the
statute
and
I'll
talk
more
about
that.
A
little
later
in
my
in
my
presentation
here,
okay,
one
call
system
in
Pennsylvania
I
ought
to
say
you
know
biased
if
I
am
is
industry-leading
in
regard
to
technology
member
services,
they
provide
I
mean
second
to
none.
C
I've
had
the
opportunity,
nationally
with
common
ground
alliance
and
AGA
to
which
is
American
Gas
Association
to
up
you,
experience,
other
state
rules
and
statutes
and
and
offerings
in
the
board
and
staff
of
PA
one-car
proactive
in
regard
to
preventing
damages
and
a
clear
example
would
be
just
in
the
year
2016.
There
are
two
emergency
tickets
introduced
in
Pennsylvania
focused
on
making
things
safer.
One
was
a
note.
One
called
reporting
ticket
that
produced
and
related
no
one
call
activity.
C
As
far
as
a
pee
stakeholders,
the
folks
defined
under
the
active
Pennsylvania
are
adequate
to
address
the
challenge
of
the
right
people.
Doing
the
right.
Things
will
certainly
have
an
impact
in
that
arena.
Okay,
in
those
enemies
working
together,
applying
the
law,
how
it
should
work
really
are
the
key
component
to
it.
I
have
to
consider
two
points
there
on
a
given
day:
utility
something
such
as
UGI
can
be
one
of
or
any
of
those
stakeholders.
C
We,
where
all
four
of
those
acts
so
clearly
a
bias
toward
the
shared
of
methodology,
and
you
know
working
in
a
more
collaborative
fashion.
Additionally,
the
utilities
in
Pennsylvania
provide
80%
of
the
funding
to
administer
the
one
call
program
so
clearly
or
all
in
or
have
a
vested
interest
in
and
support
that
interest
by
their
actions.
Very,
very
positive.
That
way
on
the
concept
of
behavior
changes
being
required.
I
want
to
consider
something
that
I
looked
at
the
d-o-t,
the
department,
transportation
umbrella
and
there's
another
sister
industry.
C
If
you
will
I
want
to
draw
on
historically
who's,
either
get
some
similar
challenges
and
how
they've
addressed
that
nexia
I
don't
know
in
spirit
of
50
to
60
in
comparison
to
the
pipeline
excavation
history
of
today,
there's
really
been
a
couple
things
in
the
initiative
on
both
sides
just
to
change
behavior,
and
how
do
we
make
positive
changes?
Industries,
but
focus
was
really
in
three
areas.
C
Under
automobile
industry
driver's
education
in
schools,
learning
the
early
ages,
awareness
campaigns
for
seat
belt,
speeding,
distracted
driving,
Google,
you
know
the
highway
safety
on
internet,
you
just
an
abundance
of
information
out
there
and
as
well
as
an
we
talked
about.
You
know
the
need
for
storm
states,
great
programs
that
they
exist
in
that
environment
today,
as
well.
On
the
pipeline
side,
no
offensive
regulations
of
the
70s
came
into
be
things
like.
The
national
press.
Kayson
safety
board
became
a
player.
C
An
organization
such
as
the
American
Gas
Association
collaborated
in
a
regulatory
environment
working
toward
best
practice
with
members
in
that
in
representing
you,
know
our
industry
in
that,
in
that
regard
operator
qualifications,
another
heavy
lift,
if
you
will
insured
training,
capabilities
and
skills,
were
in
place
for
operators.
You
know
things
got
done
and
not
that
effectively
distribution,
integrity,
management
programs
came
along
late
in
2011,
but
you
know
afford
the
opportunity
to
rank
risk
damage
prevention.
Being
one
of
those
third-party
damages
is
a
big
issue,
but
is
I'd.
C
You
rank
risk
and
develop
action
plans
around
those
issues.
One
call
centers
begin
popping
up
in
the
70s
becoming
stronger,
better
technology,
support
that
as
well
in
followed
by
the
common
ground
alliance
in
the
early
2000s
and
the
common
eight
one.
One
message
to
make
it
easy
to
call
before
you
dig
being
eight
one,
one
so
very
effective
that
way:
the
technology
side.
C
On
the
enforcement
side
with
pipelines,
there
are
regulatory
fines
that
can
be
behavior
changing
as
well.
Some
states
require
licensing
and
whatnot
I
think
there's
some
room
to
really
tie
the
three
together
and
enforcement
model
that
promotes
education,
which
would
be
a
great
lead-in
but
I
think
there's
more
to
be
done
that
area.
What
I
will
say
is
that
looking
statistically
backward,
the
auto
industry
claims
to
have
reduced
fatal
crashes
by
over
half.
So
that's
a
significant.
C
C
The
limits
DLT
admissible
exemption,
that's
one
of
the
keys
that
Emery
talked
about
again
and
I.
Thank
her
for
teeing
up
my
presentation
feel
adequately
and
it's
one
of
the
things
that
it
does.
It
is
tied
to
states
if
you're,
not
in
fact,
in
line
with
this,
you
could
suffer
not
receiving
grants
for
some
of
your
OneCard
damage
prevention
initiatives.
There's
been
some
form
of
pain
tied
to
that
as
well.
C
It
brings
a
new
sheriff
to
town
of
Pennsylvania
if,
in
fact
the
law
is
enacted
and
the
law
is
currently
in
the
House
and
Senate
as
we
speak,
but
it
moves
enforcement
forces
from
labor
industry
and
Pennsylvania
to
the
Public,
Utilities,
Commission
and
I'll.
Just
say:
I'll
say
this:
if
we
change
the
enforcer
and
don't
have
a
call
to
action
and
in
fact,
you're
costly
change,
where
we're
at
in
Pennsylvania
with
enforcement
and
being
serious
about
reducing
damages,
it
will
have
wasted
a
lot
of
time.
So
we
need
to
not
just
change
a
sheriff.
C
B
C
A
problem
it
provides
excavators,
a
priority
response.
Forcefully
owners
went
on
back
the
line,
but
we
miss
marker
unmarked
the
big
issue
on
a
downtime
provision.
The
law
would
also
provided
for
all
classes
of
pipeline
operators
of
Pennsylvania,
including
the
traditional
gathering
lines
under
the
Marcellus
Shale
boom
to
be
covered
under
the
one-call
acted.
Well,
there's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
about
that
and
lobbying
word
of
that
issue.
C
It
also
requires
fulfilling
to
maintain
the
band
align
information,
which
again
is
a
big
big
factor
in
design
and
construction
activities
and
pushing
forward
in
those
areas
and
also
in
Pennsylvania
the
last
thing
it
does
it.
It
has
gas
operators
providing
subsidization
for
the
enforcement
piece
of
software.
There
will
be
an
open
assessment
to
utilities
to
provide
the
enforcement
Pennsylvania,
so
the
staffing
administrative
activities
will
be
largely
funded
by
the
utilities
themselves.
C
So,
knowing
what
to
improve
I
use,
you
GI
as
an
example
here
requires
data
mining,
no
metrics
and
benchmarking.
You
have
to
be
able
to
next
slide.
What
drives
your
damages
you
have
to
be
able
to,
in
fact,
have
key
indicators
in
there
that
really
move
the
needle
on
performance
that
you've
got
just
know.
Running
flakes
are
actually
making
a
gainful
advance,
consume
your
damage
reduction,
and
it's
done
a
flying
plan
to
reduce
your
risk
know
what
drives
your
risk
out
there
and
some
things
we
know
about
our
program
in
our
statistics.
C
Is
it
over
50%
of
our
damage
lines
in
Pennsylvania
on
our
system
are
correctly
marked
yet
still
damage
that
that
goes
along
with
is
saying
that
there's
really
no
fear
of
consequence
of
any
magnitude.
We
talk
about
horizontal
directional
drilling
with
big
fans
of
trenches,
excavation,
but
it
is
a
low
probability,
but
a
high
consequence
activities
can
factor
the
damage.
C
You
wonder
how
we
can
generally
have
repeat
offenders
in
the
business
where
there
should
be
some
consequence
for
those
actions.
Azam
builds
a
somewhat
newer
concept
where
a
couple
of
design
and
building
of
the
project
in
one
one
entity
and
there
have
been
some
shortcuts
that
way
if
we
keep
an
eye
on
with
excellent
next
slide.
C
So
what
is
fair
about
balanced
enforcement?
Look
like
it
subjects
off
stakeholders
to
the
same
provisions
and
consequence
it's
not
a
tiered
system,
and
then
we
talked
about
we're
in
jurisdictional
as
a
gas
operator
to
the
federal
code,
we're
also
jurisdictional
and
in
Pennsylvania
to
the
state
utility
code,
as
well
as
a
one
call
Act
which
is
administered
by
another
agency,
so
I
called
double
jeopardy,
but
we
clearly
have
a
lot
of
exposure.
We
get
inspected
audited
and
are
subject
to
consequences
in
at
least
two
arenas.
C
If
you
will
so
we
understand
what
an
enforcement
looks
like
and
just
wanted
to
be
fair
and
balanced.
There's
a
requirement
Pennsylvania,
where
all
facilitators
must
be
members
or
all
underground.
Owners
of
assets
must
be
members,
and
that's
not
the
case
everybody's
not
all
in
so
it
needs
to
enforce
that
make
it
a
level
playing
field.
C
It
would
require
design
and
subscripts
utility
engineering
activities.
I
will
state
that
damage
prevention
begins
in
design
if
you're
planning
to
avoid
those
facilities
and
not
inflict
damage
on
others
lines,
the
board
of
you'll
do
a
much
better
job.
That's
done
in
advance
of
construction.
It
requires
responsible
trenches.
Excavation
I
touched
on
horizontal
directional
going
earlier,
and
it's
an
area
where
we
clearly
in
advocate
to
the
technology,
but
it
has
to
be
responsible.
C
There
are
a
number
of
incidents
across
the
nation
that,
because
it
suggests,
when
it's
not
in
a
responsible
fashion,
they
can
certainly
have
devastating
consequences.
It
ensures
a
strong
education
component.
You
have
to
leave
with
education
and
make
sure
people
know
what
the
expectations
are
in
order.
Mccampbell
for
that,
on
the
flip
side
of
that,
if
you
have
bad
actors,
it
has
to
be
punitive
to
those
who
are
demonstrating
a
blatant
disregard
for
the
safety
of
public
and
those
around
and
our
facilities.
C
It
also
has
the
whole
project
owners
accountable
for
changing
that
behavior
and
every
third
party
excavator
out
there
working
today
around
our
facility
is
somebody
else's.
Second
party
excavator.
Nobody
gets
up
in
the
morning
without
just
starts
excavating
for
the
good
of
it
they're
being
compensated.
There
is
a
behavior
side
of
that
compensation
and
we,
as
project
owners,
have
to
make
sure
that
they're
in
place
and
being
enforced.
C
Lastly,
it
has
to
promote
planning
a
regional
partnership
mentality
which
is
a
component
of
the
common
ground
alliance,
where
you're
collaborating
communicating,
cooperating
and
coordinating,
and
it
all
gets
better
for
everybody
in
that
regard,
and
the
next
slide
a
little
case
study
we
had
ug
I've
been
involved
in
and
completed,
was
a.
We
assumed
the
closet
enforcement
role,
because
Sheena's
does
enforce
them
work.
C
It's
a
question
we
heard
number
of
times
and
2014
we
looked
at
our
damages
and
we
equal
the
CJ
national
average
of
26
percent
of
our
damages
with
a
result
of
not
getting
a
one
call
advantage
of
excavation
of
the
damage
we
look
to
a
five-year
period
and,
on
average
124
damage
of
the
year,
where
the
result
of
no
one
call
being
place,
and
we
really
struggled
with
what
to
do
next
is
reported.
Offenders
did
not
seem
to
impact
the
number
or
move
the
needle
in
the
positive
fashion.
C
In
2015,
we
rolled
out
an
employee
driven
pilot.
No
one
call
reporting
program
focused
to
County
area
of
our
service
franchise
service
territory
and
saw
very
good
results
or
reduce
damages
in
that
to
town
area.
As
a
result
of
no
one
called
by
57%
the
next
year,
we
worked
with
a
PA
one
call
board
who
adopted
this?
No
one
call
reporting
process,
they
built
a
merge
feed
ticket
around
that
and
now
calls
and
Pennsylvania
go
right
to
8,
1,
1
and
all
facility
owners
in
the
big
area
in
notification.
C
Excavator
digging
without
a
one
call
notification.
It's
been.
It's
been
a
good
success.
So
far
we
rolled
that
out,
company-wide
at
UGI
in
all
46
counties
in
Pennsylvania,
and
we've
experienced
over
the
last
two
years,
a
48
percent
reduction
and
damages
associated
with
no
one
call
that
equates
to
120
damage
that
we
would
have
seen
on
an
average
year
in
the
prior
five
years,
looks
so
very,
very
productive,
very
progressive
and
a
great
opportunity
to
really
share
in
a
partnership
with
the
Philly
owners
and
PA.
One
call
next
slide.
C
C
B
Jarick.
Thank
you
very
much
for
that
presentation.
It
was
a
great
feel
for
how
the
program
is
working
in
Pennsylvania
and
some
of
the
initiatives
that
are
being
considered
there.
Please
remember
that
if
you
do
have
questions,
you
can
type
them
into
the
question
box
at
any
time
and
we
will
get
to
them
at
the
end
of
this
session.
Our
final
speaker
today
is
Deanna
poon,
who
will
offer
some
perspective
on
how
Indiana,
which
updated
its
one-call
law
in
2009
has
addressed
the
issue
of
damage
prevention.
B
Vienna
has
worked
for
the
state
of
Indiana
since
2004,
but
moved
to
the
Indiana
utility
Regulatory
Commission
in
2009
at
the
IU
RC
she
specializes
in
issues
surrounding
pipeline
safety
contracts
and
administrative
rules.
She
has
also
been
integral
in
streamlining
the
notification
and
review
process
and
has
represented
the
IU
RCS
pipeline
safety
division
on
numerous
occasions.
Please
welcome
Deanna
poon.
D
Good
morning
or
afternoon,
depending
on
where
you're
calling
in
from
my
name
is
Deanna,
poon
and
I
have
multiple
roles
within
our
agency
and
in
damage
prevention.
As
an
assistant,
general
counsel
to
the
Indiana,
you
took
utility
Regulatory
Commission
I
assists
our
pipeline
safety
division
in
various
aspects,
but
by
statute.
The
Indiana
commission
is
also
required
to
provide
staff
to
support
the
Indiana
underground
plant
protection.
Advisory
Committee,
which
I'll
be
referring
to
as
the
you
pack
and
I
am
their
legal
adviser.
D
D
So
I'd
like
to
start
with
the
history
of
our
dig
law
back
in
1981
Indiana
8
1
1
began
operations
and
ten
years
later,
the
damage
underground
facilities
Act
passed,
but
it
did
not
have
any
penalties
associated
with
it.
In
2006,
the
federal
pipes
Act
was
signed,
giving
sense
of
the
authority
to
take
federal
enforcement
actions
if
States
did
not
so
between
2006
and
2009
Indiana
8
1
1
had
a
legislative
committee
within
their
membership
and
they
work
to
develop
an
enforcement
section
to
Indiana
law.
D
There
were
a
number
of
competing
interests
that
make
consensus
difficult
and
in
November
of
2006.
Unfortunately,
two
people,
including
a
gas
operator
employee,
were
killed
in
a
gas
related
explosion
that
was
a
result
of
excavation
and
so
that
really
brought
home.
That
cooperation
was
needed
to
initiate
some
enforcement
tools.
D
Dated
in
2014
to
consider
how
to
excavate
in
the
tolerance
zone
and
near
pavement
or
other
man-made
hard
surfaces
and
the
state
when
a
dig
ticket
expired,
there
was
also
a
summer
legislative
committee
that
explored
facility
depth
studies
to
determine
whether
depth
should
be
provided.
Two
excavators
when
operators
locate
their
facilities
and
just
this
year,
design
tickets
were
added
that
must
be
located
within
ten
full
working
days
versus
the
normal
to
full
working
days.
D
There
are
some
distinctions
of
our
law
versus
other
state
programs,
while
all
utilities
are
included,
the
penalties
are
only
for
violations
regarding
gas
pipelines,
there's
mandatory
reporting
of
damages
by
gas
operators
and
the
monetary
penalties
that
are
received
fund,
a
damage
prevention
program
through
the
underground
plant
protection
account.
And
finally,
there
are
distinct
roles
for
the
Indiana
commission,
the
Commission
pipeline
safety
division
and
the
you
pack
a
couple
more
distinctions
of
our
law.
D
There
are
violations
associated
with
the
different
penalties,
and
this
is
interesting
because
a
large
swath
of
people
are
affected
generally.
The
Indiana
Commission
has
jurisdiction
over
utilities
and
the
pipeline
safety
division
investigates
gas
pipeline
matters,
but
excavators
operators
and
members
of
the
public
could
be
implicated
by
these
big
laws
for
excavators.
They
can
face
penalties
for
damaging
a
gas
line
when
they're
excavating
without
a
valid
big
ticket.
D
Failing
to
notify
the
operator
when
the
marks
have
become
illegible,
requesting
a
false
emergency
ticket
or
failing
to
stay
out
of
the
tolerance
zone
with
mechanized
equipment,
with
some
limited
exception
for
gas
operators,
they
face
penalties
for
failing
to
mark
or
miss
marking
a
line
that
is
later
damaged.
All
operators,
not
just
gas,
do
face
penalties
for
failing
to
join
8,
1
1
if
they
have
underground
facilities
and
anyone,
including
members
of
the
public,
can
face
penalties
for
knowingly
moving
damage
or
altering
locate
marks.
D
Our
pipeline
safety
division
is
required
to
investigate
cases
damages
specifically
the
underground
gas
lines,
and
last
year
they
investigated
approximately
2000
cases.
Operators
again
are
required
to
report
those
to
us
and
excavators
respond
in
about
50%
of
the
cases
after
our
pipeline
safety
division
determined
the
violation,
the
u-pack
by
statute,
access
and
advisory
capacity
to
the
Indiana
commission
recommending
penalties.
D
The
possible
penalties
that
they
can
recommend
include
a
warning
letter,
training,
corrective
action
plans
or
monetary
penalties,
those
go
up
to
10,000
for
excavators
and
up
to
1000
for
operators.
In
addition
to
defines
that
operators
are
subject
to
under
this
law,
they
can
also
be
subject
to
additional
fines
of
up
to
$25,000
under
the
general
pipeline
Safety
Act,
our
u-pack
has
created
a
penalty
schedule
so
that
they're
consistent
in
their
issuance
of
penalties,
and
they
really
that
schedule
annually
to
see
if
it's
working
and
determine
what
changes
need
to
happen.
D
Parties
have
two
options:
after
the
u-pack
recommends
a
penalty,
a
party
may
request
a
public
hearing
to
challenge
the
violation
or
recommended
penalty,
and
a
properly
requested
public
hearing
will
be
docketed
in
front
of
one
or
more
fine.
Commissioners
from
Indiana
Commission,
the
parties
appear
and
produce
evidence,
and
a
final
order
is
issued
by
the
Indiana
commission.
That
does
happen,
but
it
happens
very
early
if
a
party
does
not
request
the
public
hearing.
D
D
Few
statistics
about
the
you
pack
review
you
can
see
at
the
top
table
is
a
sampling
of
penalties
issued
in
a
typical
month,
and
the
second
chart
is
annual
case
review
in
recent
case
reviewed
in
recent
years.
The
you
pack
has
reviewed
between
1300
to
1500
cases
per
year,
and
you
might
note
that
this
is
less
than
the
number
that
is
reviewed
by
the
pipoint
Safety
Division.
They
don't
send
cases
over
without
a
violation,
and
there
are
cases
that
are
no
violation
or
they
are
not
enough
evidence
to
make
a
final
determination.
D
So
again,
the
money
from
these
penalties
into
the
underground
plant
protection
account.
This
was
an
account
created
by
statute
and
the
Indiana
Commission
is
responsible
for
establishing
and
administering
three
different
types
of
programs.
Under
this
public
awareness,
training,
education
and
incentives.
D
The
account
currently
has
2.2
million
dollars
in
fines
issued
and
an
account
balance
of
1.1
million
dollars,
and
this
fund
does
not
revert
back
to
the
state
general
fund.
It
is
a
dedicated
money,
dedicated
fund
with
money
earmarked
only
for
damage
prevention
and
we've
been
able
to
do
a
lot
of
good
work
with
this
money
through
Yuka
funds,
the
Indiana
commission
invested
in
a
radio
and
internet
marketing
targeting
Indiana
homeowners
ages,
35
to
64
who
had
a
recent
interest
in
home
improvement
or
residential
construction
projects.
D
We've
also
partnered
with
the
Indiana
Broadcasters
Association.
We
have
a
public
education
program,
that's
available
only
to
nonprofits
and
government,
and
we
get
a
full
year
of
radio
and
television
ads
with
95%
of
Indiana
residents
over
18
years
old
reached
per
month
in
2017.
We
also
did
seven
safety
days
geographically
located
across
Indiana.
They
featured
a
live
line,
strike
demonstration
with
emergency
response.
We
serve
breakfast
and
lunch,
there
are
networking
opportunities
and
we
have
a
training
that
covered
Indiana,
digg
law
and
best
excavation
practices,
and
these
were
all
free
to
attendees.
D
The
Indiana
commission
has
contracted
for
online
training
to
make
free
training
more
accessible
to
excavators.
This
training
is
accessible
through
a
computer
or
a
mobile
device.
All
videos
will
be
closed
captioned,
so
excavators
can
view
the
training,
even
in
a
noisy
environment
like
a
jobsite.
Its
interactive
training
with
quizzes
and
tests
and
certificates
of
completion
are
provided,
and
this
is
in
the
works
and
we're
hoping
to
release
this
soon.
D
Some
additional
promotions
that
have
occurred,
including
sponsors,
various
promotional
activities
on
eight
one
one
day,
which
is
August
11th
last
year,
we're
again
going
to
sponsor
eight
one.
One
day
in
2017,
the
Indiana
commission
has
provided
grant
money
for
excavator
handbooks
damage,
prevention,
conference,
scholarships
and
seminars,
and
finally,
we
provided
grant
money
for
continuing
promotions
with
Indianapolis
Indians,
the
minor
league
baseball
team
in
Indianapolis
for
this
season.
D
The
big
question
is:
is
it
working?
Let's
look
at
some
Indiana
trends,
Indiana
excavation
trends.
We
are
seeing
an
increase
in
ticket
volume
in
every
month,
but
since
2014
ticket
requests
have
increased,
so
the
word
is
out
that
you
need
to
call
e11
before
you
dig
and
while
ticket
volume
has
increased
59%
from
2011
to
2016,
the
damages
have
actually
decreased
by
9%.
D
The
percentage
for
locates
that
were
inaccurate
or
untimely
has
not
decreased,
though
even
when
factoring
in
the
increase
in
ticket
requests.
While
it
has
an
increase,
we
want
to
see
zero
damages.
The
pipeline
safety
division
is
now
exploring
enforcement
opportunities
under
Indiana
code.
Eight
one,
twenty
two
point:
five,
which
is
our
Indiana
statute,
that
adopts
federal
standards
and
carries
larger
penalties,
the
maximum
penalties
under
the
big
law
for
operators
as
$1,000
versus
Indiana's
incorporated
federal
enforcement,
which
is
$25,000
each
up
to
$1,000,000.
D
In
a
series
we
are
seeing
fewer
repeat
violators
and
more
violators
going
at
least
a
year
between
damages
companies
are
voluntarily
taking
training
or
sending
more
employees
than
are
required,
and
excavators
are
responding
in
more
cases,
which
means
we
have
their
attention.
Previously.
We
were
getting
letters
returned
and
calls
arguing
that
the
Indiana
commission
has
no
jurisdiction
over
excavators
and
we're
actually
now
experiencing
calls
from
excavators
saying
hey
an
operator
isn't
marking
my
line.
I
need
your
help.
So
there
a
trend
of
compliance
and
partnerships.
D
Two
out
of
the
three
largest
gas
operators
in
our
state
have
proactively
adopted,
philosophies
related
to
safety,
culture
and
safety
management
systems.
We
anticipate
seeing
less
miss
margin
failures
to
mark
as
a
result,
and
this
is
the
biggest
thing
for
us
is
we
want
to
see
and
we
are
seeing
a
change
in
safety.
Culture
I
know
that
personally
last
week,
I
received
a
neighborhood
email
saying
that
keep
an
Annapolis
beautiful
was
planting
trees
on
Saturday
and
what
we
please
cannot
help.
My
first
thought
was:
oh
no
did
they
get
locates
and
sure
enough?
D
B
B
A
D
Would
say
that
monetary
penalties
have
really
got
people's
attention
and
being
able
to
use
those
funds
for
education
has
been
instrumental
in
getting
a
word
out
about
calling
8
1
1
what
to
do
before.
You
dig
what
to
do
if
you
hit
something
and
then
within
our
own
pipeline
safety
division,
the
enforcement
provisions
against
operators
to
ensure
that
they
are
marking
accurately
and
marking
on
time,
because
not
only
is
it
a
safety
issue,
it
can
be
an
economics
issue.
If
operators
aren't
marking,
then
you
have
excavation
crews
sitting
there
waiting
for
work
to
do.
B
Right,
that's
a
great
point.
Eric
I'd
like
to
ask
you
to
describe
a
little
bit
more.
The
no
call!
No
one
call
reporting
program
that
you
said
has
been
pretty
effective.
How
exactly
does
that
function
and
does
it
rely
on
operators
happening
upon
a
project
site
or
just
please
explain
that
sounded
like
a
interesting
and
innovative
approach.
B
C
When
we
piloted
it
with
a
new
GI
with
specific
to
our
organization,
our
employees
and
we
ran
it
through
our
dispatching
Center
when
it
expanded
you,
the
one
call
center
under
eight
one
one.
Anybody
anybody
in
Pennsylvania
can
now
notify
eight
one
one
that
they've
observed
an
excavation
site
with
no
markings
being
paint
flags.
Some
indication
that
there's
you
know
underground
facilities
in
the
big
area.
It's
just
been
very
successful
and
expanding
it
to
all
facility
owners
again
when
it
was
the
UGI
program.
C
B
A
It
varies
with
each
state
and
there
are
the
evaluation
had.
It
was
basically
a
pass/fail
evaluation
course
because
it
has
to
be
inadequate
or
adequate
states
that
were
deemed
some
states
were
deemed
inadequate
because
they
took
no
enforcement
actions
in
the
previous
calendar
year.
What
we
are
looking
for
is
for
states
to
have
the
ability
to
use
their
enforcement
authority.
Have
enforcement
authority
have
the
ability
to
use
it
and
to
use
it
as
appropriate.
A
It
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
be
a
civil
penalty
in
every
case,
but
we
they
have
to
have
the
ability
to
use
civil
penalties.
We
are
also
looking
for
states
to
be
able
to
show
us
the
results
to
have
data.
We
have.
We
have
data
that
you
know
from
all
the
gas
distribution
operators,
so
we
know
you
know
how
many
damages
were
occurred
in
each
state
each
year
and
if
they
were
caused
by
an
excavator
in
our
operator,
error,
one
color
or
some
high-level
data.
A
We
know
that
the
operators
in
the
states
have
a
lot
more
detailed
data,
so
we
really
are
encouraging
states
to
to
get
some
reporting.
You
have
to
get
some
reporting
of
damages
and
to
act
accordingly,
so
we
we
want
them
states
not
only
to
have
the
ability
to
enforce,
but
they
also
tell
the
story.
What
are
the
results
of
the
program
it?
It
does
take
a
while
to
build
a
program
like
that,
but
you
know
we
have
resources
available
for
states.
You
know
to
to
take
advantage
of
to
build
their
programs.