notes from damage prevention workshop held on july 18, 2001 ellensburg, washington

Notes from Damage Prevention Workshop, July 18, 2001

1

Notes from Damage Prevention Workshop held on July 18, 2001

Ellensburg, Washington


2

Current One-Call Law: RCW 19.122Key Words and Discussion

• Locate and keep accurate records• Protecting from damage• Protection of people• Defines rights, responsibilities, & duties

among all parties--and causes of action if not followed. This allows parties involved to resolve problems amongst themselves.


3

Key Words and Discussion, continued:

• Public health and safety = # 1 concern• Third party damage is obvious concern, law

should also cover cathodic protection and loading issues.

• Verizon hit 850 times 2000, YTD 550. Concerned that law not always followed, what is being done to make them aware of all consequences?


4

Key words and Discussion, continued:

• Law focuses on locating in timely manner, but allows no recourse for failure to follow procedures

• Chronic vs. acute damage not addressed

• Need more education built into law--experience indicates many not aware of law or at least specific responsibilities.


5


• Public health and safety = # 1 concern• Third party damage is obvious concern, law

should also cover cathodic protection and loading issues.

• Verizon hit 850 times 2000, YTD 550. Concerned that law not always followed, what is being done to make them aware of all consequences?


6


• Positive response from facility owner that located lines. Automated response not effective.

• All buried facilities should be stressed with equal importance, value, and enforcement (e.g., water, sewer)

• Owner/operators keep accurate records• Many aspects covered in law--but no

enforcement mandated, especially those that refuse to join one-call system


7

Key Words and Discussion, continued• New facility operators with out of state ownership are

installing but not joining one-call system• Report of repeat offenders should be maintained so

avoid painting all with broad brush; distribute -among excavators- more data about damages

• Planning & design data lacking• Clarify “maintaining of the marks”• Clarify life of ticket• Mandate line locating means as part of installation

process: marker sand, tape, etc.


8

• Due to lack of clarification re: life of ticket, some enforce claims for damages that happen after 10 days, call-center interprets that action as need to tell callers ticket is only good for 10 days.

• Mandate more specific data provided during design stage

• Tolerance does not clearly define the surface “footprint” 24 inches/either side not always adequate

• Weather appropriate locate standards, marks

Key Words and Discussion, continued


9

• Depth threshold of 12 inches to call, not clearly defined

• Standards* for mandatory standby should be considered (*depending on potential threat to public/health safety)

• If standby recommended - should be mentioned during call before digging

• Do not confuse recommended standards/guidelines with RCW.

• Standby is not substitute for good communication



10


• Directional drilling/boring should be specifically addressed and clarified

• Address placement standards of new buried plant - or refer to other sources to find data

• If main point is addressed, aside from anecdotes/opinions/ideas it comes down to enforcement of existing law. Which should bring discussion about the logistics et al, that go into what it takes to enforce RCW 19.122-all entities would be affected.

• --------------------------------------------------


11

Enforcement of RCW 19.122

• Requires a discussion about the process of creating enforcement

• RCW 19.122 is a good law, but enforcement parameters are lacking

• When an infraction is discovered, who do you call/what do you do if you want to encourage safe work, but are not a direct party?


12


• How do we have this discussion without first determining who will be the enforcement entity/agency

• Facilitator called for agreement on need for enforcement before we go forward

• Participants called for overview of Oregon law. Discussion ensued about frivolous complaints and procedures in place in OR that discourage false complaints.


13

Enforcement of RCW 19.122• Concern that if OR model duplicated in WA,

certain agencies and means would be mandated by current WA code.

• OR law may serve as a model but WA would have an open door to create new law.

• If copy of OR law needed, or clarification, contact Frank Planton: 503-232-1987

• Complaint driven system sounds re: letting a third party decide a dispute. (continued)


14


• (continued) Complaint driven system sounds re: letting a third party decide a dispute. BUT, what about field enforcement, and a clearing house for interpretation.

• No means of “going after” person that does not call before digging


15

Question: Design a process of enforcement of current law? With NO changes

• 11 (eleven) NO votes

• 1 abstained

• Remainder = ?

Question: Design new law, with enforcement

• NO votes

• YES vote


16

General confusion and disagreement about questions asked in poll.#1-Clarification requested#2-Timeline requested#3-Other questions should be answered before these#4-Individual stakeholders must answer these questions, and raise others before we go forth.#5-Above step (4) is premature#6-Return to general discussion about damage prevention#7-Experience says 80% of problem caused by 20% of same violation year end/out#8-Might there be in-fighting going on between the various “houses”


17

#9-Who has ultimate responsibility of enforcing current law: WA Attorney General.#10-AG does not enforce RCW 19.122 because there are more pressing issues before them - therefore if we are to discuss damage prevention in WA, it must start with ideas to enforce what we have - which many believe was original intent of today’s meeting#11-Straw poll threw the group off track#12-What can this body specifically do with RCW 19.122?#13-Only AG can provide clear input on this subject, but they do not attend these session--albeit they are invited#14-There are agencies in WA that already enforce safety-why not use them: OSHA - and - WISHA#15-These particular agencies are limited in their scope, and must direct their efforts towards activities that pay their freight, also there are many existing laws that prohibit the extent of their enforcement activities. The most success can be obtained by using the methods/exercises suggested by WUTC to find ways to enforce the current law.


18

Considerations when changing law• Legislators require a good reason

• Many steps in process

• Many trade-offs - you may not end up with what you wanted

• We are friends and in agreement when talking about specific trouble with RCW 19.122. BUT if we open the law we risk pitting ourselves against each other

• To fix a long standing problem requires “baby steps” and a willingness to put in enough time to succeed. The alternative - piecemeal fixes each session - could take an eternity.


19

Electric Group Conclusions

• Form State agency• Defined members• One board member from fire dept. and one

insurance adjuster• Add an investigation step to complaint driven

process (similar to insurance industry)• Funding

– add on to permits– add a per ticket charge to one-call ticket


20

Water Group Conclusions

• Complaint driven process

• Board of peers, volunteers, regional representation (E/side W/side issues)

• Rotate members and venues (mix up representation)

• Ascending fine system where money goes to education process

• Have a plan in place to respond immediately to complaints with pending threat to public welfare

• Explore the OR model

• Fund via surcharge on one-call ticket

• Ask professional associations to help fund

• Fund with portion of fines


21

Telecommunications Group Conclusions

• Force all operators to join call system

• Complaint driven system/volunteer committee - with sunlight on all complaints

• No police or “agency” type enforcement

• Educational component for first time offenders

• Look at existing state laws for models

• Funding percentage of each ticket

• Funding per call center member


22

Miscellaneous Group Conclusions

• Force all operators to join one-call system• Complaint driven system• Look in existing agencies for possible

enforcement• Add training and education to fine• Funding - add cost to utility tax, increase one-

call fees, increase UCC dues, landowner based on total miles


23

Contractors Group Conclusions

• Complaint driven

• Resolve conflicts at lowest level possible

• Stop jobs in the field that have no ticket number. There is always an authority figure in the process, e.g., permit inspector, OSHA, L & I

• Across the board enforcement


24

One-call & Locators Conclusions

• Costs? How much do we have to cover?

• Insurance industry representative on the Board

• Hire outside contractors as good guys such as Locating Inc., and other private contractors to gather data in the field

• Fines should cover the inconvenience


25

Pipeline (Gas & Liquid) Conclusions

• Compare/contrast other state laws• Enforcement must accelerate with frequency of offenses• How do you offset production incentives vs. fines for cut ‘n run - add

an education component.• Enforce near misses, cathodic protection can’t be put at risk due to

fear of fines• Stop back filling damages• Board members must prove expertise• Link permitting to one-call system• Education s/b mandated for non-compliance• Reinforce positive behavior• Complaint driven system - by anyone


26

Pipeline (Gas & Liquid) Conclusions continued

• Address enforcement for all violations, not just breakage• Imprison the real bad actors• Mediate--solve the problems on the way to court• Notify insurance companies of violations• Seek grant money for education• Enforce Dig Safely tenants of faith(1. Call before you dig 2. Wait

appropriate amount of time 3. Respect marks 4. Dig w/ care 5. Safety is a shared responsibility)

• Escalate enforcement based on serious of infraction• Must be degree of reasonableness of enforcement - be logical• Develop standard 1-call process• Funding-add to each 1-call ticket, licenses/permits increases,

percentage of fine goes to enforcement and education


27

Conclusion• Different groups often reached same conclusions• Next the focus must be narrowed from brainstorming

to execution

• To get the notes from this meeting and other info. Visit www.wutc.wa.gov/pipeline

• Volunteers are being accepted to join education committee which will hold separate meetings on damage prevention education


28

Next Workshop Meeting:August 22nd

Ellensburg Inn 1700 Canyon Road Agenda: TBD

notes from damage prevention workshop held on july 18, 2001 ellensburg, washington

Documents

damage prevention workshop

key words

acute damage

aware of law

concernthird party damage

specific data

obvious concern

cathodic protection