Damage Prevention
Damage Prevention Safe Digging Starts with One Law
The Problem The Final Rule The Legislation The Future
The Problem
2015 National DIRT Report 32,750,000 Locate Requests (8% increase)
206,217,000 Transmissions (6% decrease) Ratio down from 7.17 to 6.30 317,000 Damages (9% decrease) 9.68/1,000 Incoming 1.54/1,000 Outgoing
The Problem
2015 TN DIRT Report 632,826 Locate Requests
3,006,000 Transmissions Ratio of 4.65 5,319 Reported Damages 8.4/1,000 Incoming 1.8/1,000 Outgoing
The Problem
The Problem
The Final Rule 9 Elements of a Comprehensive Damage Prevention Program • Communication between operators and excavators • Support and partnership of all stakeholders in all phases (enforcement, system improvement, etc.) • Operator’s use of performance measures for persons performing locating and construction • Partnership in employee training • Partnership in public education • Enforcement agencies’ role as partner and facilitator to help resolve issues • Fair and consistent enforcement of the law • Use of technology to improve all parts of the process • Analysis of data to continually evaluate/improve program effectiveness
The Final Rule
PHMSA Evaluation •Does the state have authority to enforce excavation damage prevention law using civil penalties or other appropriate sanctions?
The Final Rule
PHMSA Evaluation •2.Does the state excavation damage prevention law designate an authority or authorities responsible for statewide enforcement?
The Final Rule PHMSA Evaluation • 3.In the previous calendar year, did the enforcement organization assess civil penalties and/or other sanctions for violations of the excavation damage prevention law?
The Final Rule PHMSA Evaluation • 4.Damage reporting • 5.Investigation and enforcement • 6.Excavator requirements • 7.Excavator exemptions
The Final Rule PHMSA Evaluation • Responses scored and weighted • 2=Satisfactory • 1=Needs Improvement • 0=Unsatisfactory • Weights range from 3-10 points
The Final Rule
PHMSA Evaluation
•TN Evaluated 11/3 nd •42 out of 52 •Awaiting judgement
The Legislation
T.C.A. Title 65, Chapter 31:
Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act Updated May 2015
The Legislation
Damage Enforcement Board 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
President of TN811, or president’s designee (ex officio) TN Natural Gas Distribution (TGA) TN Utility Districts (TAUD) TN Cable Industry (TN Cable & Telecom Assoc) Large TN Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier Public Utilities TN Municipalities (TML) Small TN Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (TTA)
The Legislation
Damage Enforcement Board 9. TN Counties (TN County Services Assoc) 10. TN Road Builders (TN Road Builders Assoc) 11. Excavation Industry (ABC of TN) 12. Interstate Pipelines 13. Private Property Owners 14. Municipal Electrics (TMEPA) 15. Electric Cooperatives (TN Electric Coop Assoc) 16. Public Utilities that also provide electric service
The Legislation
Executive Committee 1. Road Builder, Excavator, or Private Property Owner 2. Local Government Official 3. Utility Representative
The Legislation
Damage Investigation • Administrative support is provided by the Tennessee Regulatory Authority • An investigator designated by the TRA will investigate all complaints received by the board • After completing their investigation, the TRA representative may issue a citation recommending a penalty
The Legislation
Penalties & Remedies • Violation of the dig law is now subject to civil penalties • A first violation will result in mandatory safety training at the expense of the violator • Subsequent violations will result in safety training and/or a penalty not to exceed $2,500 per incident
The Legislation
Penalties & Remedies • A violation that is deemed the result of gross negligence or willful misconduct will result in safety training and a penalty not to exceed $5,000 per incident • Knowingly and willfully removing or destroying utility markings is considered vandalism and is subject to applicable penalties • Monetary penalties may not be levied against state, county, city, town, utility district or political subdivisions unless a pattern of willful noncompliance has been established
The Legislation
Comparison States
•Virginia •Georgia •Mississippi
The Future
Comparison States
•Virginia •Georgia •Mississippi
The Future
Damage Prevention Programs • Coordination Meetings • Liaison Programs • Pipeline Awareness • Training
The Future
Contact Craig Ingram Public Awareness Manager [email protected]
The Problem The Final Rule The Legislation The Future
The Problem
2015 National DIRT Report 32,750,000 Locate Requests (8% increase)
206,217,000 Transmissions (6% decrease) Ratio down from 7.17 to 6.30 317,000 Damages (9% decrease) 9.68/1,000 Incoming 1.54/1,000 Outgoing
The Problem
2015 TN DIRT Report 632,826 Locate Requests
3,006,000 Transmissions Ratio of 4.65 5,319 Reported Damages 8.4/1,000 Incoming 1.8/1,000 Outgoing
The Problem
The Problem
The Final Rule 9 Elements of a Comprehensive Damage Prevention Program • Communication between operators and excavators • Support and partnership of all stakeholders in all phases (enforcement, system improvement, etc.) • Operator’s use of performance measures for persons performing locating and construction • Partnership in employee training • Partnership in public education • Enforcement agencies’ role as partner and facilitator to help resolve issues • Fair and consistent enforcement of the law • Use of technology to improve all parts of the process • Analysis of data to continually evaluate/improve program effectiveness
The Final Rule
PHMSA Evaluation •Does the state have authority to enforce excavation damage prevention law using civil penalties or other appropriate sanctions?
The Final Rule
PHMSA Evaluation •2.Does the state excavation damage prevention law designate an authority or authorities responsible for statewide enforcement?
The Final Rule PHMSA Evaluation • 3.In the previous calendar year, did the enforcement organization assess civil penalties and/or other sanctions for violations of the excavation damage prevention law?
The Final Rule PHMSA Evaluation • 4.Damage reporting • 5.Investigation and enforcement • 6.Excavator requirements • 7.Excavator exemptions
The Final Rule PHMSA Evaluation • Responses scored and weighted • 2=Satisfactory • 1=Needs Improvement • 0=Unsatisfactory • Weights range from 3-10 points
The Final Rule
PHMSA Evaluation
•TN Evaluated 11/3 nd •42 out of 52 •Awaiting judgement
The Legislation
T.C.A. Title 65, Chapter 31:
Underground Utility Damage Prevention Act Updated May 2015
The Legislation
Damage Enforcement Board 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
President of TN811, or president’s designee (ex officio) TN Natural Gas Distribution (TGA) TN Utility Districts (TAUD) TN Cable Industry (TN Cable & Telecom Assoc) Large TN Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier Public Utilities TN Municipalities (TML) Small TN Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (TTA)
The Legislation
Damage Enforcement Board 9. TN Counties (TN County Services Assoc) 10. TN Road Builders (TN Road Builders Assoc) 11. Excavation Industry (ABC of TN) 12. Interstate Pipelines 13. Private Property Owners 14. Municipal Electrics (TMEPA) 15. Electric Cooperatives (TN Electric Coop Assoc) 16. Public Utilities that also provide electric service
The Legislation
Executive Committee 1. Road Builder, Excavator, or Private Property Owner 2. Local Government Official 3. Utility Representative
The Legislation
Damage Investigation • Administrative support is provided by the Tennessee Regulatory Authority • An investigator designated by the TRA will investigate all complaints received by the board • After completing their investigation, the TRA representative may issue a citation recommending a penalty
The Legislation
Penalties & Remedies • Violation of the dig law is now subject to civil penalties • A first violation will result in mandatory safety training at the expense of the violator • Subsequent violations will result in safety training and/or a penalty not to exceed $2,500 per incident
The Legislation
Penalties & Remedies • A violation that is deemed the result of gross negligence or willful misconduct will result in safety training and a penalty not to exceed $5,000 per incident • Knowingly and willfully removing or destroying utility markings is considered vandalism and is subject to applicable penalties • Monetary penalties may not be levied against state, county, city, town, utility district or political subdivisions unless a pattern of willful noncompliance has been established
The Legislation
Comparison States
•Virginia •Georgia •Mississippi
The Future
Comparison States
•Virginia •Georgia •Mississippi
The Future
Damage Prevention Programs • Coordination Meetings • Liaison Programs • Pipeline Awareness • Training
The Future
Contact Craig Ingram Public Awareness Manager [email protected]
