Perspectives

Publisher’s Perspective, V4, I1

From the contractor to the water system owner/operator and from the traditional utility company to the contract locator, all are going to be impacted by passage of the 2006 PIPES Act.

It is vitally important to understand that changes to our damage prevention programs are going to be proposed at the state level or mandated from the federal level. The best way to understand the impact of the new law is to involve yourself in meetings and sessions focusing on the advantages and disadvantages of any proposed change. It will require a commitment to a clearer understanding of the perspectives of stakeholders that do not always align with our perspectives. I do not know if consensus is possible, but I do know that it is necessary. We must work together to be successful.

The following 9 elements are found in the Act and contain language and incentives to encourage states to strengthen their underground utility safety and damage prevention programs.

1) Participation by operators, excavators, and other stakeholders in the development and implementation of methods for establishing and maintaining effective communications between stakeholders from receipt of an excavation notification until successful completion of the excavation, as appropriate.

(2) A process for fostering and ensuring the support and partnership of stakeholders, including excavators, operators, locators, designers, and local government in all phases of the program.

(3) A process for reviewing the adequacy of a pipeline operator’s internal performance measures regarding persons performing locating services and quality assurance programs.

(4) Participation by operators, excavators, and other stakeholders in the development and implementation of effective employee training programs to ensure that operators, the one-call center, the enforcing agency, and the excavators have partnered to design and implement training for the employees of operators, excavators, and locators.

(5) A process for fostering and ensuring active participation by all stakeholders in public education for damage prevention activities.

(6) A process for resolving disputes that defines the State authority’s role as a partner and facilitator to resolve issues.

(7) Enforcement of State damage prevention laws and regulations for all aspects of the damage prevention process, including public education, and the use of civil penalties for violations assessable by the appropriate State authority.

(8) A process for fostering and promoting the use, by all appropriate stakeholders, of improving technologies that may enhance communications, underground pipeline locating capability, and gathering and analyzing information about the accuracy and effectiveness of locating programs.

(9) A process for review and analysis of the effectiveness of each program element, including a means for implementing improvements identified by such program reviews.
PHMSA’s State Damage Prevention Program (SDPP) Characterization Tool is already being used to assess the State’s damage prevention law. The state’s one-call system, along with the state’s regulatory authority, are required to respond to a series of questions that are designed to determine whether the current state law is in agreement with these nine elements.

All stakeholders are at a crossroads. We need to be careful not to look at these issues in terms of what I want vs. what you want, or even who is right and who is wrong.

We need to focus on what is right, and what is right is being willing to accept responsibility for our actions. Effective enforcement is never about fines; it’s about education, and it’s about accountability.