 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Witness Testimony
Mr. Robert Kipp
Pipeline Safety Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Robert Kipp and I am the Executive Director of the Common Ground Alliance (CGA). I am pleased to appear before you today to represent the CGA. Background: The Common Ground Alliance is a nonprofit organization dedicated to shared responsibility in the damage prevention of underground facilities. The Common Ground Alliance was created just over three years ago at the completion of the "Common Ground Study of One-Call Systems and Damage Prevention Best Practices." This landmark study, sponsored by the U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Pipeline Safety, was completed in 1999 by 161 experts from the damage prevention stakeholder community. The "Common Ground Study" began with a public meeting in Arlington, VA in August 1998. The study was prepared in accordance with, and at the direction and authorization of the Transport Equity Act for the 21st Century signed into law June 9, 1998 that authorized the Department of Transportation to undertake a study of damage prevention practices associated with existing one-call notification systems. Participants in the study represented the following stakeholder groups: oil; gas; telecommunications; railroads; utilities; cable TV; one-call systems and centers; excavation; locators; equipment manufacturers; design engineers; regulators; federal, state, and local government. The Common Ground Study concluded on June 30, 1999 with the publication of the "Common Ground Study of One-Call Systems and Damage Prevention Best Practices." At the conclusion of the study, the Damage Prevention Path Forward initiative led to the development of the nonprofit organization now recognized as the Common Ground Alliance (CGA). The CGA's first Board of Directors' meeting was held September 19, 2000. Building on the spirit of shared responsibility resulting from the Common Ground Study, the purpose of the CGA is to ensure public safety, environmental protection, and the integrity of services by promoting effective damage prevention practices. The CGA works to prevent damage to the underground infrastructure by: -- fostering a sense of shared responsibility for the protection of underground facilities;
--supporting research;
-- serving as a clearinghouse for damage data collection, analysis and dissemination.
The CGA now counts more than 1,150 individuals representing 15 stakeholder groups and over 130 member organizations. Each of the 15 stakeholder groups has one seat on the CGA Board of Directors, regardless of membership representation or financial participation. CGA members populate the organization's six working committees: Best Practices, Research & Development, Educational Programs, Data Reporting & Evaluation, Marketing, Membership, & Communications and the One Call Center Education Committee.
In addition to increasing our membership by some 60% since last meeting with you, we have added a board seat to represent the American Fence Association and its members. The association estimates that fencing contractors dig some 120,000,000 holes per year and are excited to be represented within the CGA to ensure they too can help contribute to the damage prevention initiatives of the CGA.
In December of 2003, the CGA welcomed the One Call Systems International group and their members to the CGA in the capacity of an education committee. The One Call Center organization was instrumental in the development of our Best Practices, active throughout the association, and the front line in damage prevention initiatives. The inclusion of this group in the CGA was an inevitable and a welcome addition to our association.
WORKING COMMITTEES
The CGA working committee guidelines include:
-- All stakeholders are welcomed and encouraged to participate in the Committees' work efforts.
-- Committee members represent the knowledge, concerns and interests of their constituents.
-- A "primary" member is identified within each Committee for each particular stakeholder group as the spokesperson for consensus decisions.
A. Best Practices Committee
To promote damage prevention, it is important that all stakeholders implement the damage prevention Best Practices currently identified in the Common Ground Study Report, as applicable to each stakeholder group. The Best Practices Committee focuses on identifying those Best Practices that are appropriate for each stakeholder group, gauging current levels of implementation and use of those Best Practices, and encouraging and promoting increased implementation of the Best Practices.
B. Research and Development Committee
The Research & Development Committee's primary role is to promote damage prevention research and development and serve as a clearing house for gathering and disseminating information on new damage prevention technologies and practices. The Research and Development Committee seeks to identify new technologies and existing technologies that can be adapted to damage prevention.
C. Educational Programs Committee
The Educational Programs Committee develops and communicates public stakeholder awareness and educational programs. These programs and products focus on the best practices and the theme of damage prevention. The Committee looks at existing damage prevention education programs to identify opportunities where the CGA can have significant impact in furthering the reach and effectiveness of those programs, and the Committee develops new educational messages and items.
D. Data Reporting and Evaluation Committee
The Data Reporting & Evaluation Committee looks at currently available damage data, the gaps where additional data reporting and evaluation is needed, and how such data for various underground infrastructure components can best be gathered and published. Reporting and evaluation of damage data is important to: measure effectiveness of damage prevention groups; develop programs and actions that can effectively address root causes of damages; assess the risks and benefits of different damage prevention practices being implemented by various stakeholders; and assess the need for and benefits of education and training programs.
E. Marketing, Membership, & Communication Committee
The CGA Marketing, Membership, & Communications Committee (MM&C) pursues opportunities where it can best promote the organization to increase sponsorship and membership. The Committee is also dedicated to the adoption of the Best Practices and promotion of damage prevention at the local level, and the committee has developed the CGA's Regional Partner Program to further this effort.
F. One Call Center Education Committee
The purpose of One-Call Systems International (OCSI) is to promote facility damage prevention and infrastructure protection through education, guidance and assistance to one call centers internationally.
ACTIVITIES
A. NTSB RECOMMENDATIONS
In July of 2001, the Office of Pipeline safety requested CGA's assistance in resolving and responding to a number of outstanding National Transportation Safety Board recommendations. In the past 3 years the CGA contributed to the closing of 8 of 9 NTSB recommendations. The ninth recommendation was directed to the CGA in 2003 and is currently in committee. The 8 recommendations deemed "Closed -- Acceptable" by the NTSB are as follows;
NTSB Recommendation P-00-01
-- Resulting from the NTSB report, "Natural Gas Pipeline Rupture and Subsequent Explosion, St. Cloud, Minnesota, December 11, 1998" -- a review of safety recommendations regarding the use of E-911 when excavation damage occurs for inclusion to CGA Best Practices. As a result of this report, the Office of Pipeline Safety requested that the CGA review the existing Best Practice and determine if the NTSB recommendation P-00-1 should be included as a "New Best Practice".
-- The recommendation from the NTSB report read: "To advise excavators to call "911" if the damage to the pipeline results in a release of gas or other hazardous substance or potentially endangers life, health or property."
-- Prior to the Recommendation the Best Practice on this issue left it to the excavator to determine if the release of gas or hazardous substance posed a danger, and if so, to determine if 911 should be called.
The CGA Best Practices Committee reviewed the recommendation and unanimously approved a change to the Best Practice to reflect the following:
Practice Statement (Best Practices Committee Approved by Consensus 11/27/01)
"If the damage results in the escape of any flammable, toxic, or corrosive gas or liquid or endangers life, health, or property, the excavator responsible immediately notifies 911 and the facility owner/operator."
-- Following additional language approved by Board on September 27, 2002 (TR 2001 -- 2B):
-- "The excavator takes reasonable measures to protect themselves and those in immediate danger, general public, property, and the environment until the facility owner/operator or emergency responders have arrived and completed their assessment."
NTSB Recommendation P-01-01
Following a natural gas explosion in South Riding, Virginia (Loudoun County), which resulted in one death, a number of injuries, and damage to a number of homes, the NTSB recommended that a Best Practice be developed regarding minimum separation of electric and plastic gas pipes in common trenches.
-- Following wording approved as a CGA Best Practice by Board on September 25, 2003:
-- "When installing new direct buried supply facilities in a common trench, a minimum of 12 inch radial separation should be maintained between supply facilities such as steam lines, plastic gas lines, other fuel lines, and direct buried electrical supply lines. If 12 inches separation cannot be feasibly attained at the time of installation, then mitigating measures should be taken to protect lines against damage that might result from proximity to other structures. Examples may include the use of insulators, casing, shields or spacers. If there is a conflict among any of the applicable regulations or standards regarding minimum separation, the most stringent should be applied."
NTSB Recommendation P-97-16,17 & 18
-- P-97-16: Sponsor independent testing of locator equipment performance under a variety of field conditions.
-- P-97-17: Develop uniform certification criteria for locator equipment.
-- P-97-18: Review State requirements for location accuracy and hand dig tolerance zones and applicability.
The Research and Development Committee of the CGA addressed the above recommendations in 2 reports filed with the Office of Pipeline Safety in 2003. These reports were subsequently forwarded to the NTSB. The 3 recommendations were closed-acceptable by the NTSB.
NTSB Recommendation P-97-22, 23 & 24
-- P-97-22: In conjunction with the American Public Works Association (APWA), develop a plan for collecting excavation damage exposure data.
-- P-97-23: Work with the one-call systems to implement the plan outlined in P-97-22 to ensure that excavation damage data are being consistently collected.
-- P-97-24: Use the excavation damage exposure data outlined in P-97-22 in the periodic assessments of the effectiveness of State excavation damage prevention programs described in Recommendation P-97-15.
The CGA has worked with the Utility Notification Center of Colorado to develop a Data gathering system to provide statistical analysis of damages and the root causes of damage to our underground infrastructure. As a result of State Law, the UNCC has been gathering data on all damages to the underground infrastructure in the State of Colorado since 2001, and publishing these results on an annual basis. Our Data committee has worked with the UNCC to enhance the system and make it easy to use, and the committee is now in the process of trialing the system with over 30 CGA corporate members.
NTSB Recommendation P-98-25
-- P-98-25: Require pipeline system operators to precisely locate and place permanent markers at sites where their gas and hazardous liquid pipelines cross navigable waterways.
The recommendation, received by the CGA in 2003 is in committee and resolution is expected within the year.
B. BEST PRACTICES
During the past two years the Best Practices Committee has reviewed over thirty practice proposals, developed and approved three new practices, and finalized an updated publication of the best practices.
-- The committee receives new practice proposals from CGA members and industry representatives throughout the year. The committee is dedicated to following a process for review and approval of these practices that meet the "consensus" standards set by the CGA to ensure agreement by all stakeholder groups.
-- The committee approved a practice in 2004 relating to the separation of gas and electric utilities that assisted with the closure of NTSB recommendation P-01-01. The closure of P-01-01 followed the committee's assistance with the 2001 closure of P-00-01. The committee also approved a practice relating to quality assurance programs for locating and marking of facilities.
-- The latest version of the practices, Best Practices Version 1.0, was published in December 2003 and has been distributed at over 100 industry events and has reached well over 10,000 stakeholders.
New Practices (Reference):
Approved by CGA Board -- March 26, 2004
-- Practice Statement: Underground facility owners/operators have a Quality Assurance program in place for monitoring the locating and marking of facilities.
-- Practice Description: The process of conducting audits for locates is a critical component to the protection of underground facilities. The recommended components included in the description were assembled from multiple sources and are meant to provide general guidelines for auditing the work of locators.
Approved by CGA Board -- September 26, 2004
-- Practice Statement: When installing new direct buried supply facilities in a common trench, a minimum of 12 inch radial separation should be maintained between supply facilities such as steam lines, plastic gas lines, other fuel lines, and direct buried electrical supply lines. If 12 inches separation cannot be feasibly attained at the time of installation, then mitigating measures should be taken to protect lines against damage that might result from proximity to other structures. Examples may include the use of insulators, casing, shields or spacers. If there is a conflict among any of the applicable regulations or standards regarding minimum separation, the most stringent should be applied.
C. EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
The Educational Programs Committee develops and communicates public stakeholder awareness and educational programs. These programs and products focus on the best practices and the theme of damage prevention. The Committee looks at existing damage prevention education programs to identify opportunities where the CGA can have significant impact in furthering the reach and effectiveness of those programs, and the Committee develops new educational messages and items.
The CGA directed an OPS sponsored survey, which determined awareness levels of various population segments with respect to underground facilities. With the findings in hand, the CGA embarked on an educational campaign targeting the agricultural community. With funding from OPS in the form of a cooperative agreement, the CGA developed a radio and print campaign targeted to this community. Materials developed for this campaign, (radio public service announcements and print media), have been made available to our members and are being utilized by some of these members in their educational campaigns.
Our Educational Programs Committee has developed the outline of the substantial awareness campaign in anticipation of the announcement of a 3-Digit number for One Call Centers. The CGA has also published "Best Practices Version 1.0" for distribution to all CGA members and regional partners in 2003. As of July 14, 2004, more than 10,000 copies have been distributed. Version 2.0 which will include best practices developed in 2004 is scheduled for print and distribution later this year.
D. DAMAGE INFORMATION REPORTING TOOL
Though addressed earlier in the CGA has worked with the Utility Notification Center of Colorado to develop a Data gathering system to provide statistical analysis of damages and the root causes of damage to our underground infrastructure. As a result of State Law, the UNCC have been gathering data on all damages to the underground infrastructure in the State of Colorado since 2001, and publishing these results on an annual basis. Our Data committee has worked with the UNCC to enhance the system, make it easy to use, and is now in the process of trialing the system with some 30 CGA corporate members.
The CGA is hopeful that this system will be used by all stakeholders on a nationwide basis, in order to help the industry gather the statistical data that will enable us to develop plans to help us reduce the approximately 400,000 damages nationwide.
Many companies are reluctant to utilize the system or upload their data into the CGA Damage Information Reporting Tool (D.I.R.T.). Some of the concerns expressed by those who would utilize this system revolve around the information being used in litigation against those who provide the data, being used by competitors should the security of the data be compromised.
A number of state regulators are currently considering gathering damage data within their jurisdictions. We hope that those states considering adopting some of the practices in Colorado, Connecticut and other states, consider utilizing the CGA system in order to have one uniform, actionable national database.
E. REGIONAL PARTNERS
In 2002, it was proposed that the CGA accept petitions from regional groups as "partners" to the CGA. With assistance from OPS, the CGA Regional Partner Program was implemented in 2002 and has since grown to 22 partners. The first annual Regional Partner meeting was held December 3, 2003, bringing representatives of all CGA regional partner programs together to develop a program roadmap.
The Regional CGA's include:
-- Alberta Utility Coordinating Council
F. 3-DIGIT-DIALING
On December 17, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the "Pipeline Safety Improvement act of 2002". Included in this Act was the following provision:
"Within 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall, in conjunction with the Federal Communications Commission, facility operators, excavators, and one-call notification system operators, provide for the establishment of a 3-digit nationwide toll-free telephone number system to be used by State one-call notification systems."
Subsequent to the Act, the F.C.C. began looking into the logistics of implementing this provision. Following a number of technical meetings of telecom personnel, public hearings, and no doubt, internal meetings on the matter, the F.C.C. addressed this issue at a public meeting on May 13, 2004. A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking followed shortly thereafter, with publication in the June 8, 2004 Federal Register. On all matters related to this issue, the F.C.C. requested responses by July 8, 2004, and replies to these by July 23, 2004. I am certain that the F.C.C. will move expeditiously to determine which 3 digit number to implement, and determine an aggressive timeline for its implementation.
Following is the text contained in the CGA response to the F.C.C.
We would like to congratulate the Commission on their willingness and desire to move expeditiously towards assigning and implementing a nationwide 3 digit number for access to our nation's 62 One Call centers.
In addition to being in the best interest of our nation, implementing a nationwide 3 digit telephone number is required by the Public Law 107-355, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002. This act was signed into law by President Bush on December 17, 2002.
As previously stated in our letter dated November 4, 2003, the Common Ground Alliance (CGA) and the 15 stakeholder groups represented by the CGA will support the implementation of any 3 digit number deemed appropriate by the FCC.
We also support the continued use of "#344" in the wireless community, in addition to the 3 digit number chosen by the FCC. We believe this number should be available as an alternative to the new 3 digit number for as long as the wireless community chooses to support this number. The wireless community deserves to be recognized and congratulated for their leadership in the movement to provide abbreviated dialing to their users in order to reduce damages to underground infrastructure, personal injuries, and deaths.
We can not support the use of a shared (dual use), 3 digit number. The CGA estimates that the 62 One Call centers currently receive 15,000,000 calls annually. We also estimate that some 40% of damages to buried utilities were caused by those who did not call before digging. The potential incoming call volume to One Call centers over the next few years could well exceed 20 million. Adding an additional interface to callers could discourage the use of the service and reduce the effectiveness and purpose of the 62 centers.
We also can not support the use of a 10 digit number. One Call centers currently have 10 digit numbers. Converting to a new number would not benefit the country and would be rejected by most, if not all of the centers. Public Law (PL) 107-355 clearly mandated a 3 digit number be implemented.
Paragraph 16 of the Federal Register states in part that " ...When a caller dials the abbreviated dialing code, the carriers would translate the abbreviated dialing code into the appropriate toll-free or local number." This is an important aspect of the process. In locations such as Arizona, the One Call center (Arizona Blue Stake) receives nearly 50% of its calls through the local 7 digit number. To translate all of the 3 digit calls to a toll free 10 digit number would add an unnecessary cost burden to this center.
We congratulate and thank the Honorable Chris John for introducing and sponsoring 3digit dialing as a provision to the "Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2002." We congratulate the commissioners on their unanimous support of this endeavor. In his statement Commissioner Michael J. Copps states:
"The very first sentence of the Communications Act states that the Act was written to make "available . . . a rapid, efficient, Nation-wide and world-wide telecommunications service . . .for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communication." So our charge and authority are clear. Now the need is to move ahead expeditiously -- to ensure that excavators everywhere can dig safely and avoid disrupting the nation's essential services."
The 15 stakeholder groups represented by the CGA believe that the rapid implementation of this new 3 digit number will help reduce fatalities and injuries to Americans who excavate and also help reduce the estimated 400,000 damages to our infrastructure each year.
CLOSING
When preparing for this testimony, I reviewed the Closing remarks in the March 19, 2002 testimony. Other than changing one name the comments remain the same. The Common Ground Alliance is a true member-driven organization. Members from the 15 stakeholder groups work together to determine direction and problem-solve, making the CGA a truly unique forum. We would not exist without the immense dedication and effort of our members as well as the financial and logistical support of Mr. Sam Bonasso (RSPA) and Ms. Stacey Gerard (OPS).
Our greatest strengths can be summarized as follows:
When the CGA proposes a policy, solution or response to a government or corporate body, the wording of such a proposal has been agreed to by primary members representing every stakeholder group within the CGA. The receiving body of a CGA proposal knows that no one industry has a vested interest, and that all stakeholder groups agree with the content and wording of such a proposal.
In addition, the CGA has brought together industry leaders on a National basis to work together and help fund the Alliance in its effort to reduce damage to our nation's underground infrastructure.
Lastly, in addition to all of the wonderful accomplishments in education, best practice development, data gathering, and research and development, the CGA is now reaching for and succeeding in bringing together stakeholders at a local level. We believe it to be successful, and we must continue to encourage and promote communication, problem resolution, and the adoption of the Best Practices within local communities as well as on a national level.
|
|||||||||||
|
